The problem is the way powerpoint encourages the user to believe they don't need to know anything to use it and that it then leads them to produce nice looking but useless slides.

That can be overcome, but perhaps it's better to just use something that doesn't have that problem to begin with.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Where does it say that for something to be settled, it must unfalsifiable. For instance, I think common understanding is that "settled science" is merely the collection of theories which are widely accepted and very unlikely to be proven false.

That would be the "settled science" we're talking about. It's settled, not indestructible.

Science could refer to either, depending on how you're using the word. There is "Science" the body of knowledge and "Science" the process by which we accumulate that knowledge. Without either you'd be nothing more than a smart monkey in a cave. Too many people forget that science is an iterative process, we produce knowledge and then build on the knowledge we previously created.

You can't stand on the shoulders of giants if you insist on always attacking their knees.

Which is actually why people sometimes talk about science being settled in the first place. You can't let one person who refuses to acknowledge what's in front of their face hold the entire world hostage to their (dis)belief. Saying it's settled, is simply a way of moving past obstinate roadblocks. That doesn't mean every time some claims something is settled it is, but if the vast majority agree then it's settled, at least for now.

There are a lot more possible explanations. For example another one is that some groups are pushing skepticism of science and scientists as a political tactic. Libertarians groups seem to fund an aweful lot of anti-science campaigns, for example. That may be because scientific evidence is often used to restrain the activities that free enterprise can engage in, something many libertarians oppose. They know attacking the messenger can prevent the message from being heard. In particular, in the climate change area, acceptance that there is a broad consensus of opinion among scientists and that the consensus supports global warming overwhelming tends to substantially increase acceptance of the findings. Thus, attacking the science and the consensus could be seen as a pre-emptive strike to prevent regulation and the dreaded source of all evil - government, for libertarians. I'm sure you could name other groups who have similar reasons to oppose the consequences of accepting certain streams of science.

Or a clue that they're taking to idiots. Never underestimate the persistance of an idiot with a grudge.

I think you're using a different definition of "settled" than most people.

Claiming the science is settled isn't an attempt to shut down the scientific process, it's generally attempt to move past the few remaining people who won't or can't accept the consensus even when they are unable provide any solid reasons for their objections. Effectively, the science is settled when the majority becomes tired of listening to arguments that have already been examined and found lacking.

People are free to continue investigating the settled science, but it's usually more worthwhile to focus on the areas which aren't already well-establish and well-supported by the evidence.

On the contrary, there is a lot of settled science. That doesn't mean it's always right, instead it means exactly that it's been accepted by the majority of scientists because of the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it.

Is it Ironic that you're repeating one of the examples that the article explicitly cites as a stupid argument presented by ignorant people? European and Middle Eastern societies have known the world was round since the 3rd century BC. Other cultures may have taken longer to reach the same conclusion, however, I'm not sure how that relates to science. Do you really intend to conflate pre-science beliefs about the world with actual scientific discoveries? Or are you trying to imply that tomorrow we may find that the world is actually a giant disk floating through space on the back of four elephants standing on a turtle?

I think of it more as a continuum than a boolean. Things may be more settled or less settled, but nothing can ever be so settled that there is no possible evidence that could change the consensus.

The degree of settled increases with time and failed attempts to disprove a theory.

No, they don't. Other examples of reckless endangerment and negligence would include buzzing the pedestrians on your motorcycle or in your car, or walking by while swinging a baseball bat carelessly. Or throwing rocks into the crowd. The FAA has nothing to do with any of those equivalently negligent actions.

No idea, but that's her problem, and without proof it's just "chatting shit", and I didn't think Newsweek was in the business of doing that just because proper journalism times time, effort and integrity. If you just want to type something, get a blog.

It's also reasonable to believe she just forgot all about passwords and such or figured they would just call Apple and all of that would be fixed right up.

Only sometimes. If you want employees to be available for teleconferencing, or prefer for them to be under the same legal system the offshore outsourcing doesn't work out at all.

Given that it has actually happened (Gaines burgers, actually) it isn't even a slight exaggeration. If that makes you feel just a tiny bit sick, GOOD.

But hey, if they're keeping Paris from enjouing that 3rd summer yacht, just send 'em all for a nice shower and call it done eh? If they wanted to actually matter like human beings they should have had the sense to be born rich. (OK, so THAT might have been a bit of an exaggeration).

Perhaps we should look into that stop blowing up brown people again.

Age is a fairly poor proxy for the metrics that would actually matter, but is far more easily determined.