Poppycock, if people do not agree about what has been observed (ie: perceived by their brain) then science cannot exist. Science is a philosophy the has as it's foundation the assumption the "real world" not only exists but looks and behaves the same to all individuals. I think what you meant to say is that science is never about personal experience, having a guardian angle is not an experience other scientists can share, however how such apparitions form and take root in the human mind is certainly a valid field of scientific study, crazy ideas and flawed methods didn't stop the study of physics, chemistry, medicine, etc, so I don't see why it should stop the study of phycology.

Not really, I was sitting corporate IQ test 40yrs ago and licensed psychologists will still run the test for you if you pay them to do so. The results are just a convenient way to filter applicants, in no way do they define who you are, or what you are capable of.

ALL small children will put anything they find in their mouth, it's a hard wired instinctive behaviour that's starts as soon as they are born and is mostly gone by time they hit school. Very young babies spend most of their waking hours staring at their hands and punching themselves in the face in an attempt to figure out how to use their arms to get stuff into their face. And yes, you do have to keep an eye on them 24x7.

I cannot agree with the court. The were clearly marked not for children, the labels are aimed at the parents who buy them, not the kids that swallow them. If the problem is common then it probably indicates a low awareness of the hazard by parents so perhaps I can agree with withdrawing them from stores. However the product is in no way "defective" so I certainly don't agree the company (let alone the CEO personally) should be liable for the cost of recalling stock that was bought and sold legally and in good faith. To me that smacks of retrospective punishment.

I'm close when saying you know nothing about science, yes. I'll add that you don't know how to make an argument.

True, psychology, like any other science, isn't about individuals. But seriously, you know nothing about science. Educate yourself, preferably not on Slashdot.

Your ad-hoc definition of science invented to exclude psychology fails due to the fact that you evidently know nothing about psychology, dictionaries, English majors and pretty much everything else you wrote about.

I know I shouldn't feed the climate trolls, but here are some obvious facts
All climate scientists are skeptics.
Not all skeptics are climate scientists.
There are many politically powerful pseudo-skeptics in the field (AKA deniers) who deliberately misinform via various front groups and no-think tanks.
The only way to find the "truth" in all this is to stop talking in hyperbole and start studying the science of climate. Personally I've had an interest in the subject for almost 30yrs, very interesting stuff. It's based on the "hard sciences" and is an excellent example of how "the big picture" of Science has practically rewritten our understanding of our planet in my own lifetime. I was literally born before the term Earth sciences was coined.

Agree, plagiarism is a type of fraud so it might reflect badly on the person depending on how rigidly one defines the principle of "fraud", it is not criminal fraud. Also many people here are software developers, sure we can write code from scratch but if you do it for a living it's basically our job to plagiarise code from each other.

Full disclosure: About 45yrs ago I reworded the Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby" for a high school poetry assignment, my teacher was so impressed she wrote "has a talent for poetry" on my final report card. ;)

You have a right to use a road but you need a license to drive a vehicle on it. In other words, driving is a privilege, using a public road is a right. There are limits on how you can use the road as a non driver which generally start when you infringe on other people's rights to a safe journey or when the activity is unreasonably detrimental to the road.

If all parties agree, an iron clad contract can be altered or shredded, same deal with the constitution. If this were not the case, if for some reason the constitution was 'read only' you wouldn't have all those amendments such as free speech. Aside from that, anyone who genuinely believes the perfect constitution can even be written is a barking mad authoritarian with zero imagination.

Truth is, hardly any self-proclaimed AGW 'sceptic' is actually a sceptic. Most of them are True Believers, repeating oft-debunked nonsense in hope of making it stick.

I think Obama (naively) believed that congress was staffed by reasonable people who wanted to work together for the betterment of society. He "reached across the isle", they took one step back and he fell flat on his face in the middle. Neither side has rushed to help him to his feet.

A court jester is the wise fool who speaks truth to power and lives to tell the tale. Stewart is not a journalist, but he is the best court jester to come out of the US since Charlie Chaplin, Colbert is a close second.

Yes, that's the main difference. Here in Oz the commercial channels still have about 10-15minutes of that style at the beginning of a "news hour". Back in the day our version of Walter was a guy called Eric Pearce, and sure a respected anchor-man has some clout as to what stories go to air but these days the networks won't allow "the talent" to gain that sort of clout in the first place.

Unless of course... you use the 8.1 preview.