Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Anonymous peer-review comments may spark legal battle->

Submitted by sciencehabit
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "The power of anonymous comments—and the liability of those who make them—is at the heart of a possible legal battle embroiling PubPeer, an online forum launched in October 2012 for anonymous, postpublication peer review. A researcher who claims that comments on PubPeer caused him to lose a tenured faculty job offer now intends to press legal charges against the person or people behind these posts—provided he can uncover their identities, his lawyer says."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Definition of religion (Score 1) 597

by UnknownSoldier (#47968787) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

> you've got way more explaining to do on how god came from nothing as a fully formed

Why do you assume _your_ definition?? That is not the _standard_ definition of God:

God, much like "Now", is eternal. God has _always_ existed -- the exact same argument you are using for energy of the physical universe.

  > The origin of the universe is well within the purview of science,

There are zero experiments one can repeat to demonstrate how the universe began. Without the ability to repeat an experiments you have at best, Philosophy, not Science. Or are you completely cluess how the Scientific Method works?

Comment: Trolling? Or just crap? (Score 2) 597

by khasim (#47966159) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Here's the full quote from that partial in the summary:

This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.

He's wrong. The problem is that the concept of "God" is un-falsifiable. So you can always tack "because God wanted it that way" onto anything.

And then it gets worse:

You might think of science advocate, cultural illiterate, mendacious anti-Catholic propagandist, and possible serial fabulist Neil DeGrasse Tyson and anti-vaccine looney-toon Jenny McCarthy as polar opposites on a pro-science/anti-science spectrum, but in reality they are the two sides of the same coin.

Normally I'd say that that was trolling. Why toss irrelevant insults into a discussion? But I think it is an attempt to bolster an argument that he knows cannot stand on its own.

Both of them think science is like magic, except one of them is part of the religion and the other isn't.

And then he COMPLETELY skips over how Tyson believes that science is "like magic". He makes that insulting statement and then fails to support it.

This bizarre misunderstanding of science yields the paradox that even as we expect the impossible from science ("Please, Mr Economist, peer into your crystal ball and tell us what will happen if Obama raises/cuts taxes"), we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.

He thinks that Economics is a science. That's how wrong he is.

Not because science is "expensive" but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.

Please look up the definition of "bombastic".

TFA could be a great example of trolling or Poe's Law or such. But I think it is just crap writing from someone who does not understand the subject.

Comment: Re:Definition of religion (Score 0) 597

by UnknownSoldier (#47965015) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

> By which definition?

As we all know Energy can not be created nor destroyed yet Science tells us "magically" the universe came into existence from _nothing_.

Religion says the Source / Eternal / God has _always_ existed. Ergo, God is the ultimate source / cause of _everything_.

Second, Science by definition is amoral. Ergo, it is incomplete. A absolutely wonderful system but it has its limits to what it can (and can't know.)

+ - The Ruinous Results Of Our Botched Understanding Of 'Science'-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes at The Week, "If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed. This leads us astray. ... Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look "more scientific" by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge. ... This is how you get people asserting that "science" commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is "scientific" because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. ... This is how you get the phenomenon ... thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them. ... It also means that for all our bleating about "science" we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our "pro-science" people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). ""
Link to Original Source

+ - Psychologist's study finds the old adage "Happy Wife, Happy Life" is true->

Submitted by tomhath
tomhath (637240) writes ""When men felt willing to express their anger or frustration, women took that as a sign that their partners were investing in the relationship, the study found. For most women studied, this translated into a sense of security or happiness for the women.

Men, by contrast, commonly expressed more fulfillment after their female partners expressed to them that they were fulfilled and satisfied in their relationships.

While the study, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, ultimately found that happiness stems from a willingness to try and understand whatever emotion one’s partner is feeling, men tend to disengage when negatively aroused, while women tend to engage and want to discuss the problem.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 0) 182

by Arker (#47955767) Attached to: KDE's UI To Bend Toward Simplicity
That's some pretty funny stuff, and I know there is similar insanity in Windows and OSX as well. Stupid error messages was an old topic long before the first IBM or Apple PC was ever sold. The funny thing is I seem to avoid 99% of them these days, on any OS, simply by using a command line or a canonical file manager. So pointing out that KDE's graphical shell sucks gets a big meh out of me. They all suck.

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 1, Informative) 182

by Arker (#47955743) Attached to: KDE's UI To Bend Toward Simplicity
"Sounds more like Windows to me. And that actually, may be a good thing. Seriously, Windows got a lock on the desktop because people liked it, and by people, I mean everyday joe blow secretary or the executive that can't even type his own emails or use a spreadsheet, in short the greater pool or end users."

No. Just no. That is flat out incorrect. Windows got a lock on the desktop because you bought it with every computer whether you used it or not, and joe blow secretary or the old-school executive did not *PREFER* it to other options, s/he did not typically understand there was any alternative. And because MS has always been willing to use their position today to acquire or destroy any company that might get in their way tomorrow, of course.

"I once read a great take on organization. If you have more than ten of something, you probably need another level for ease of use, be it files in a folder, icons in a start menu, etc. I took the time to redesign my start menu in windows, and boy I and anyone else could find right where any program was, quickly."

Arent you glad that the system *allows* you to do this manually, instead of insisting on hiding all the details and just giving you an unchangeable 'view' that enables only the most commonly used options rather than confuse you?

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...