When Germany is ranked middle of the pack and the United Kingdom comes out on top, there are serious questions about methodology, measures, and general utility, to put it in an extremely kind and mild fashion.

"This woman has done a tremendous amount of [activist image cultivation] regarding international human rights and refugees, [only donating extremely modest sums relative to her wealth and regularly supporting organizations that have questionable track records, many of which even have a history of counterproductive…

This was not a Turing test. There was no human control. Even if it were, it was failure and not a pass, as a pass must exceed chance (which a single judge failing to make the correct judgement is not, by any stretch of the imagination). Why does no one reporting on this understand these basics?

There's plenty of argument that it didn't pass a Turing test. No human control = not a Turing test. Not exceeding a chance result, let alone merely fooling a single judge = failing a Turing test. That's just poking at the most obvious flaws in the claim. If you're going to report on this stuff, at least bother to…

This is not actually a valid Turing test. And there are numerous chatterbots commonly available that perform more convincingly. Typical science reporting fail.

There are several problems with this supposed theory. Just to start, the general's arrest was widely reported, as was his release. He also died several years after the Man in the Mask.

I love comics Hawkeye. I couldn't care less about MCU Hawkeye. He's such a bland, forgettable chump. If they dressed him like a clown and had him make Archie Bunker cringe lines, that would be an improvement.

After he wrote an entire chapter about a character nearly shitting themselves to death, I've kind of lost the ability to be shocked in the least.

I can hardly believe anyone accepts Macklemore's claim of ignorance. Dressing like a Shylock and performing a song about penny pinching just isn't believably an accident any more than dressing in blackface and doing a tap routine during a song about grape soda would be.

King Ghidorah! Make it so, Gareth.

Pacific Rim had awful SFX with unclear action and difficult to see/remember monsters. Godzilla had crisp SFX with clear action and clearly presented, easy to see and remember monsters. Night and day.

Browsing around the pits of pseudoscience that are natural remedy forums is a problem in and of itself.

I guarantee you, you won't see discussion of "falsifiability" in peer review of scientific research...

Well, that's one of the derpiest reasons ever. Spellchecking can be easily disabled and there are a wide variety of simple word processing programs.

Internal and external validity are core elements of judging the quality of experimental design and scientific value of research. Whether or not a theory is falsifiable is one of the basic benchmarks for distinguishing science from woo. Thanks for making it clear you have no idea how basic science and peer review…

You are misinformed. A minor in philosophy is insufficient for professional ontology development, a master's in philosophy generally the minimum and a doctorate more common. Also, many philosophers involved in such fields do not possess a practical degree of relevance to those fields.

How do you determine what is a successful prediction or not? Simply saying "it works" is insufficient, as it allows for anecdotal fallacies and does not account for degrees of validity. It takes philosophy to resolve such considerations.

Validity. Falsifiability. Good luck doing science without those philosophical contributions.

You are completely off about neuroscience. There are more philosophers than ever involved in that cross-disciplinary area of study and a subset of philosophers were instrumental in pushing for the rejection of archaic, pseudoscientific psychology. Non-empirical psychologists were muscled out; while they are sometimes…

AI development and semantic web development, along with numerous other crossdisciplinary fields which heavily rely on defining and revising ontologies. That's a hot area for philosophers right now.