SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fluffeh writes:
"For a few years the National Research Council, National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have been working to put together a set of standards for teaching science in public education schools. So far, nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards. Wyoming doesn't appear to have issues with evolution. Instead, climate science appears to be the problem. That's not because any of the legislators have actually studied the science involved and found it lacking. The issue appears to be solely with the implications of the science.
State Representative Matt Teeters had this to say '[The standards] handle global warming as settled science. There's all kind of social implications involved in that that I don't think would be good for Wyoming.' Specifically, Teeters seems to think that having citizens of the state accept climate science would 'wreck Wyoming's economy,' which relies heavily on fossil fuel production."
(Score: 1) by FakeBeldin on Monday March 17 2014, @10:53AM
That is why *good* science not only explains known stuff (experiments), but makes (testable) predictions about unknown stuff.
Basically, good science explains to you how to falsify itself (and explains to you why that approach indeed falsifies the science), in a testable way. This basically structures (or, if you will, replaces) the consensus process: it's good science if it proposes a good, testable method which can falsify its results, and the results of that good, testable method do not falsify the result.
In that case, there just might be something to the science.
<offtopic> /Needham-Schroeder(-Lowe) and the TLS implementation.
wrt your signature: scientists also identify solutions. They just hardly ever get round to implementing them... Hence the big difference between such things as Diffie-Hellman / RSA / ELGamal
</offtopic>