Although this study is good for grabbing headlines, the analysis seems a little bit shallow. For one thing, the focus is on STEM (Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering) disciplines, As someone who teaches at the college level in both a STEM field and a traditional humanities field, I am well aware that different areas require different methods. For instance, if one is teaching the basics of computational cognitive modeling, then some interactive segments are necessary. However, things work entriely differently if one is teaching, for instance, the history of the philosophy of mind. Another issue I have with the study is (as best I can tell -- I cannot access the original paper) that they do not control for lecturer effectiveness. To put it simply, we all know that some people are better at lecturing than others. That being said, even when teaching say, Cartesian Dualism, there are steps that can be taken to make lecture classes better. For instance, it is widely known that most humans have an attention span of between 10 to 20 minutes. So, it is simple enough to give everyone a break every twelve minutes, or so and tell a story, or some historical anecdote. Similarly, the Socratic approach, asking for input from students throughout the class and then encouraging discussion, can also make lectures much more effective and enjoyable. These are some of the things I do. That being said, I have known people who just drone on in a monotone, in lecture classes. Folks such as that can be utterly tedious. My point here is that unless the effectiveness of the teachers is taken into account, this study cannot be trusted.

I hope the percentage of criminals who get caught for bragging is high... Because if for every one of these guys in the article, there's one who can keep his mouth shut, then we may be in trouble.

A "global extinction event" is "highly probable"? And the future is wind and solar?? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

You know what's bad if you have motion sickness?

Watching a video of a guy on a roller coaster watching a video of being on a roller coaster.

FoxBleed is one. It doesn't block the connection, but it lets you know about the problem.

You should be fired.

It's an F-350. It's tornado-proof.

Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!

Would you care to read the summary and try again?

That's one of the most well-articulated statements as to why Bennett's posts are worthless. Thanks!

I feel I should point out I was being ironic in my original post. In the comments for previous essays by Bennett, he has attempted to defend himself by challenging everyone to find any incorrect statement. Of course the lack of incorrectness is ludicrously insufficient to justify his posts, as you point out.

Can you find any statement that is incorrect?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solar+pan...

That's pretty much what I said. Why do you call me an idiot?

We have countless lungs to study. We have one (1) universe, and one (1) atmosphere. There is no repetability of the grand narratives, because there's a sample size of one, and we're in the middle of the "experiment". Completely different from studies on lungs.

The article conflates two very different types of science. One is experimental: cigarettes cause cancer. That's a testable, provable (and proven) hypothesis. The scientific method can be used. Alternate explanations can be systematically disproven.

Then there's the science that says, "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true". Note that it does NOT say "therefore Z MUST be true", which is what the article is implying. Z is something like the story of the universe from Big Bang through inflation up to today, or the story of manmade global warming. "Science" can project itself in those directions and come up with some answers, but there is no scientific method on a narrative. There are no controlled experiments. Every alternate hypothesis cannot be evaluated. They are at best projections, models. They're not "truth" without faith.