Calcott asks for clarification of reciprocal causation, whilst Gardner writes "'reciprocal causation' is not conducive to successful biological science", implying that he has misunderstood our usage of this term.
It's common for mainstream press articles to sex up their science reporting, but implying that "science has verified" something based on an evolutionary psychology paper is as accurate as claiming that scientists have verified the deliciousness of Marmite.
This seems to imply that science does not tell us what we ought to believe.
The types of critiques presented above imply that science is about proofs, that scientific credibility requires absolute certainty.
Though Hall meant his metric lightheartedly, some suggest the K-index gets it wrong by implying that science communication and research productivity are incompatible.
Kuhn's notion of incommensurability in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions misleadingly appeared to imply that science was somehow irrational, and consequently it faced many challenges and caused many confusions.
In the meantime, both believers and non-believers are done a huge disservice when people promulgate biased and disingenuous claims that distort what current science implies and can imply about the universe.
That provocative claim, from animal findings described in tomorrow's issue of Science,* implies that health officials may have to revise their surveillance of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a condition characterized by tremors, memory loss, and dementia that tends to strike people under 40.
This is an important finding to note because it challenges the idea that women and people of color are inherently less interested in science and implies that structural and disciplinary cultural factors, rather than individual preferences, should be the focus of future examinations of representation in STEM.
"Modern science directly implies that there... is no ultimate meaning for humans".
Nate states that "the more dramatic [climate scientists'] claims, the more likely they [are] be quoted... .., seemingly implying that scientists have a motivation to overstate the science.
