Science Magazine used Transwomen as props on a cover that had nothing to do with the contents. All it did was stigmatize a marginalized group of people and probably reinforce bias among members of a privileged group, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The use of the cover by a large production of that group of privileged people proves the presence of anti-transgender feelings which, like other bigotries, can hide under color of science. I say this as one who has defended the validity of the work of various scientist in the face of activist and anti-scientific, backlashes.
As a consumer of science who is not a scientist how can you know if a theory is legitimate or simply crakcpottery. Here are some easy to understand signs that an alternative theory is legitimate science.
A blog about spam by Tommaso Dorigo (
The Spam Of Physicist Mailboxes ) got me thinking about this issue. How can one know if a theory which is less favored or "alternative" to the accepted "standard model(s)" is legitimate science? These points will apply to any area of science, but I know astronomy and astrophysics the best. So, I will use an example from that area of science.
Many American Indians do not like "Bering Strait theory" because of how it is misused by non-native non-scientist. This is my attempt to set the record straight. The Bering strait migration of the paleoindians is a law of nature supported by evidence from the old and new world. It is a part of the theory of human evolution, from African hominids to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. African H. S. Sapiens then migrated to and replaced all other species with 1 to 2.5% admixture with at least two and maybe three archaic yet closely related species [1][2]. Every shred of DNA evidence and every fossil support this statement. This does not mean that everyone is "black", or that American Indians are "immigrants".
After great pains to simulate the foreground dust the Cosmic Microwave Background, gravitational wave result of BICEP2's B-Mode observations is still in question. The simple fact is we do not really know what the foreground dust contamination really is right now. The PLANCK collaboration will release that data, and sometime this year, their own map of CMB B Modes. PLANCK's release of a real foreground dust map, not one based on a presentation slide, which is what the BICEP2 team first used, will settle this once and for all. All of that said, the work of the BICEP2 team is good and worthy science, weather they are shown to be right, wrong, or only partially right (i.e. if there is an effect but not as big as they claim).
Scientist often end up using two computers, one for scientific work, another for everything else. Thanks to really practical and affordable virtualization that is no longer necessary. The hardware is now cheap enough for the average consumer-scientist to afford. The software has caught up to the hardware. What used to be a frustrating experience as programs ran like molasses in January is now good enough to be practical. The ultimate system for a scientist used to be one computer with two separate system boards joined in one case. One board running a Windows OS, the other Linux or UNIX. Now we only need to download the right software
They key issues in the discussion of the BICEP2 result center around the way BICEP2 accounted for dust in the foreground. They based their analysis on a presentation graphic which was shown at the April APS conference of 2013. This may have been a mistake. In the defense of the BICEP2 team, that graphic was the best data available at the time. A .fits file of this particular data from PLANCK did not exist yet. Never the less, it leads to reasonable questions about the validity of the result.
There Is No Such Thing as a "Nuclear Scientist". There Are Only Physicists
The Thirty Meter Telescope May Be Cancelled Not by Ordinary People's Protest, but by Wealthy People's Whim
NASA Predicts Asteroid 2024 YR4 Might Hit The Moon. 
Basically No chance 2024 YR4 will hit Earth. 
.png "Windows 8.1 + Ubuntu under Virtualbox the ultimate system for scientific use.")
