what a great idea, we might now remember more!

Hello Dr. Sabine, I have request. Pardon me for being forward. On the video of free will, you introduced me to "category mistake". I am a layman and now I feel I constantly suffer from "category mistake". If you would make a video on how to categorize everything for a layman, it would be awesome. Specifcally is there "one parent category to rule them all" or "multiple unrelated parents"?

I got 13/13! Very interesting and thought-provoking video indeed, Thank you so much Dr. Sabine!

These quizzes are intellectual. They only measure one's ability to repeat what some else said. It doesn't measure how one understands.

you might be able to use this, because it is meant totally honestly: thanks for the OPERA AD! that's the exact feature ("islands") I was looking for and I'll switch right away!

It's a bit more complicated than that, but it's an interesting case. They weren't accused of not predicting the earthquake, but of not having given sufficient information about the risks after a succession of smaller tremors, and of not having corrected incorrect information given by officials. It was still a very bad idea to convict them, though.

😂 They never listen to scientists and when something goes wrong they immediately blame the scientists. Go figure.

From a decent tax payer's perspective the question should be "Why are we funding yet another useless team of Scientists?"... Surely these freeloading wasters could get a proper job or let industry / insurance companies fund them.. Suing them is one way to send a message to Left Wing Wasters to stop throwing good money after bad.

This is misleading, the officials were not sued for failing to predict an earthquake, they were sued for telling locals that there CERTAINLY would not be an earthquake. Background: The town of L'Aquila was wracked by hundreds of earthquakes over several months that frightened locals. Also, a retired Nuclear physicist, Giampaolo Giuliani, made scary predictions that the almost daily earthquakes were leading up to a big earthquake that would destroy the town. As a result of the earthquakes and Giuliani warnings, townsfolk were sleeping in the open, in tents, instead of their homes. In response, the mayor of L'Aquila, Massimo Cialente, arranged a Town Hall meeting aimed at contradicting Giuliani's warnings and reassuring townsfolk (like the Mayor of the town where Jaws was eating swimmers). At the meeting, a hydrologic engineer, not a geologist, Bernardo De Bernardinis, reassured townsfolk the earthquakes were "releasing energy" and this made a big earthquake less likely. He told the people of L'Aquila to return to their homes, not to worry, and pour themselves a glass of Montepulciano wine. Less than 48 hours later, the town was devastated by an earthquake that killed 308 people, many of whom were previously sleeping in tents until they heard Bernardinis' reassurances. The officials were convicted of PREDICTING no earthquake. The court understood that the prediction of earthquakes, their occurrence and non-occurrence, is impossible. The reassurance there would certainly be no earthquake was not based on scientific evidence, and it caused people to sleep in doors and resulted in people's deaths when a big earthquake struck the town. Subsequent analysis found that about a third of earthquake swarms in Italy lead up to a big, damaging earthquake. i.e. officials should not have told people they were certain there would not be a big earthquake. Townsfolk should have been allowed to make up their own minds based on uncertain evidence.

​@@Diamonddavej Now you are misleading people. That's not what they said, the exact quote is: "A large earthquake along the lines of the 1703 event is improbable in the short term," said Enzo Boschi a member of the Italian Serious Risks Commission, during the meeting. "*But the possibility cannot definitively be excluded.*" Boschi and Selvaggi specifically showed the citizens and government a seismic risk map which clearly marked L’Aquila as being marked as being in the highest risk area of earthquakes. Bernardo De Bernardinis was a hydrologist, but more importantly he was an Italian government official and misrepresented what the geologists and scientific community said. The scientists were convicted because Bernardo De Bernardinis, a government official, misrepresented what the scientists had said. The guilty verdict was eventually overturned because it was shown that the scientists involved did actually warn people (with their caveats) and the the accusation was made based on their words and warnings being misrepresented and ignored. There are a lot of articles about this specific case. Here are two pretty good ones. - Nature 2014 Italian seismologists fight to overturn convictions - Verge 2014 Manslaughter conviction overturned for Italian geologists, but other scientists are still fearful

What? 😮

Medical doctors who questioned Covid-19 protocols were censored and their licenses threatened.

So is this bad or good? I'm confused. In the context of the video it's no good but the hard agenda pushed by Tobacco lobby from USA and india makes me suspicious about the already researched studies of harm reduction in tobacco consumption

seriously??! Thats crazy

All governments have irrational laws. When they are exposed, the authoritarian reply is: "The law is the law", meaning, "We don't need to be rational, we got the power." You can keep changing faces forever but that politics wll never work. You will see our species self destruct first.

It was a huge step in the right direction compared to what came before, but the time has come for another step in the right direction.

With lawyers getting 1/3 of the spoils. Ultimately, a "losing party pays" system will stop most of it.

Ahahahahah, good one.

The legal system is not about justice(fairness), its about social stability. Once you realize that then you will begin to understand the system a lot better

​@@UncleKennysPlaceMostly true. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop financially better off organizations from abusing the disability of financially weaker opponents to pay for their defence in the first place. I'm from Germany, and I was truly shocked when I learned in law school that in the US you may win the case brought against you and still have to pay your legal expenses yourself. The mere thought feels revoltingly injust. However, my first argument still stands. Because even if our legal system works differently over here (simplified: You loose, you pay your own and your opponent's legal expenses and the court), the problem of finding a lawyer who works for you without an upfront payment still remains. Insurance remains king in that regard. Most high profile cases are thus either brought to court by larger organizations or at least supported by one.

Wait and see as new laws and rulings come into existence.. 😮

Thanks for the info.

remember the law that doesn't let gun companies be sued for harm done by their guns and stuff maybe a law like that should exist for scientists idk how they'd do that tho

Guess which political party is standing in the way teaching critical thinking in schools.

imagine trying to explain it to someone who consistently acts as if they dont understand it, while they in fact do, for behavioral camouflaging reasons. I've wasted hundreds of attempts to clarify smth to a person, during two decades, just to finally realize that they where playing dumb just to keep my weaker brain busy in this cycle,that had always had exactly 0 probability to succeed. it was hard to believe and to just focus on the hypothesis, which came out true🙂

@@cyberbiosecurity Yeah, 1 is near 1.

Sued for what?

Darned stochastic parrots at it again? ;*[} (whenever I see Bayesian I think of LLMs)

Nowhere near 1. Changing their mind is indeed likely to fail, but judge bias might be (often arbitrarily) favorable to what the scientist says rather than opposed, in which case a judge would be interested in hearing and possibly using it. This is an important distinction in law, because you can observe patterns with judges and create at least appearance of impropriety if they behave inconsistently. Quite likely to make that particular judge hostile, but pointing out objective inconsistencies by that judge to show bias has some chances on appeal...especially if the appellate court is biased differently or if the lower court was so egregiously biased that they just get thrown under the bus so that the higher court keeps appearances.

And those missing information makes the decision factually incorrect, but including that information would make the trial unacceptably slow.

@@erkinalp Academics are hard to trick. Courts don't like that.

@@user-zb2st6zi6jharder to trick at least

They pretend all those things are hard, but then wrap their own practices in a system that is literally not understandable by human brains - not even their own. You can't make anything definitive if no one can understand it which makes it a non-zero chance to win an otherwise unwinnable court case.

If you ever want to avoid jury duty, tell them you are logically trained in the scientific method (mathematician, scientist, engineer, technical.) They will immediately dismiss you. The fall back to that is to say you believe in jury nullification. Judges don't like it when jurors nullify illegal (unconstitutional) laws and rules.

That is rough since he faced opposition from other scientists. At least Frances Kelsey had the backing of her FDA bosses and coworkers when she took on companies making thalidomide.

@@synchronium24 Ahh yes, thalidomide, the flipper baby chemical. Want your baby to be born with flippers? Take some thalidomide today!

@@synchronium24 often those other "scientists" are more interested in money than in researching

Was he the toxicologist hero who, when the tetraethyl lead corporation found out he had tenure, just forced the university to shut down his entire department in order to get rid of him?

@@synchronium24 You can usually tell whether the opposition from other scientists is in good faith or not fairly easily. As I understand it, the opposition to his research was entirely "he is not a chemist! This is not his field! He should stay in his lane!" all of which are entirely illogical and unscientific ways to actually address a scientific issue. It might play in the media, might sway political types in universities and at journal publishers, but to anyone actually looking to discern the truth it sticks out like a sore thumb as "we can't address the claims, so we will attack the speaker" nonsense.

Doing something for the sake of being seen to be doing something is often worse than doing nothing.

Everybody who takes an education degree has probably produced a piece of research - not saying all of it is quality or groundbreaking but the volume of work is there. So why do all UK education policy changes get driven by the minister for education? and why don't any of them go through the "where is the scientific evidence?" test? Sad to see the same change for change sake approach in more than 1 place.

Could this for example have anything to do with grand theories by Zolton Dienes - his primary mathematics "manipulatives" seem to be just Roman numerals in disguise - but yet used to teach positional numbering system!

Grand theories. Yep. That's how the game is played. That and the fancy term that is never defined. Educational maximization. Just start blabbing about EM. They're afraid to ask, and everybody gets angry if you ask. . @@nicholasayres3265

The contempt of court laws exist for a reason. I guess the appropriate thing for someone in Gill's position is to contact the defence lawyers and offer himself as a witness. The courts aren't incapable of dealing with scientific evidence; they deal with it like other evidence, by being presented in court and being subject to contestation. In other, but not irrelevant, news it will be impossible to get Trump convicted in a jury trial because too many jurors will have "done their own research."

A juror should not be "Googling" anything. The evidence is produced in court and they must decide on it, not read idiotic comments on social media.

@@warfarenotwarfair5655 I agree with that, but having trained as a scientist, what I found most distressing about jury duty is that, with the exception of asking the judge for clarification on the letter of the law, jurors are not allowed to ask questions.

The fact that they would sue also a journalist for talking about an ongoing case does not make it reasonable. The fact that other people in the UK don't get human rights does not mean that human rights are bad.

@@tzaphkielconficturus7136 It's not actually a human right to say whatever you want whenever you want. Even in countries which have a "right to free speech" it's a lot more constrained than most people think. In this instance, the rights of the defendant (and indeed prosecution) to a fair trail are being compromised.

what *exactly* are you calling " thinking"? You have no idea?-no surprises there. What would be a clear example of whatever you mean by "irrational thinking?

Hmmm, a) Are you a politician or engaged in anything akin to politics and their committees? (just checking for bias here) b) Are you averse to the notion of thinking as an application of some basic mental skills (still to be fully determined, ask prominent researchers in the domain about that!) dedicated to perceiving and understanding our surroundings and basing our actions or reactions on the facts as we perceive them to select the course of action most suitable to our survival, and possibly also, maximize secondary priorities such as enjoyment, satisfying curiosity etc..? If you answered yes then read on, otherwise forget it. In view of the above, and In my opinion, though individual people in government (writ large) definitely in their personal lives do act in ways that would be defined as demonstrating thinking that is logical and rational (the two being considered synonymous by most people I believe) they are not necessarily able to do so when faced with the demands of political parties' aims and foibles! Case in point, Hairy Hare (a politician in Canada aspiring to attain the highest position in coming elections) constantly, and automatically I would say, criticizes any and all, actions, pronouncements, or legislative action of the current administration, with the sole basis of his face appearing in the newscasts. Now, it may be considered just my personal bias, but this does not conform to what I would describe as rational thinking for a political party truly intent on delivering what is in the best interests of the country, hence by mere definition, it is irrational thinking! (i.e. not rational = irrational) This pattern of unwarranted confrontation between opposing political parties on what appear to me to be factual truths, (such as a need to curb carbon emissions for example, or have policies for improving the lot of homeless peoples, or retirees living in "genteel poverty" etc..) seems to be prevalent in all too many worldwide government entities since time immemorial and leads me to believe that, for reasons unrelated to the facts at hand, political parties (and their adjunct committees) often engage in irrational behaviours presumably brought about by irrational thinking.

You don't have to spend resources fixing it, and you can only ignore it if you don't know. Also pride probably.

That is BEcauSE IT aFFEcts THEir BUissNesss! People in other areas of human activity play with the "how far can I get with this" game, so whenever someone tries to stop them (as another seller of the same or similar product) it tends to be fair game to attack them with slander, misinformation and lawsuits, science is about the discovery of limits to the universe, so when you try to sell an infinite energy generator, a scientist comes and says "that doesn't work", the scammer will deal with him the same way he dealt with the banker, the seller of solar cells or the NIMBY neighbor, it has worked the last three times, what ould be different this time?

samething with hacker in general when they follow curiosity

No no, the laws are plenty scary by themselves because the interpreters are the ones who wrote the law to begin with. Vague laws are tyrannical laws.

I don't know, I've seen law books and they're *very* intimidating

" The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow..." Federalist 62

The UK police have gone utterly nuts as well, they’ve stopped looking for real criminals and now seem to exist to silence truth tellers

@@raulperez375 yeah, imagine getting hit with such a big book...

Perhaps a paper about the Streisand effect can differentiate first orders Streiand effects in publications regarding attempts to conceal information, and 2nd order effects due to discussions of the Streisand effect in the abstract using this particular case as a citation. A third order affect may be found in survey across all instances of Streisand effect in order to elicit statistical conclusions. And so on and so on and so on...

and yet they are still scamming people with impunity...

Attention is only a bad thing if they somehow don't win.

Giordano Bruno was turned into scientists long time after his death due demand for scientists burnt at the stake clearly outstripping supply... During his let's call it... colorful life he was specializing in rather unorthodox theology. I'm curious why you did not pick Antoine Lavoisier or some scientists from the Soviet Union murdered during the Purge... :D

@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Only because my ignorance.

Galileo could not produce evidence for his claims. His friends eventually got him to quiet down, but his enemies goaded him into one more round and his addiction to snark got him killed. Who were his friends and enemies? The Church would have loved to see Earth lifted to a place in the heavens, rather than being at the bottom of everything and only one step above Hell. The neo-pagans on the other hand, some of whom held high positions in the Church, were fine with the Earth being the center of the Universe. The only hero of that saga is Kepler.

Related: you can have as much justice as you can afford.

This reminds me of Trump. He likes to sue people. Since he has lots of money the legal costs of suing do not concern him. But he may punish his opponent with legal costs. For example, it has been proven that he is not a billionaire. But if you publish that information he may sue you. Can you afford to fight him in court knowing you are correct?

@@sparky7915 well he SAYS he has lots of money. His constant grifting belies that statement, however.

His favourite trick is to get other people to spend their money for his benefit. When Trump was president he only paid about $500 in taxes. Now that he is being supervised he paid $15 MILLION. if he can he will saddle you with the dinner bill and let you pay the tip too. @@ThatOpalGuy

I recall in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", law books were the first ones to get burned by the survivors. Their attitude made a lot of sense, lol.

"apologetics", wiki it. so basically some "religious people" get a mandatory... "task" from what they believe is a demon/deus(or whatever batshit entity) : to combat narratives that induce doubt in their shit. its an ancient practice. the rule of the game includes permitted lies. including lies about all sorts of truth/lies topics in general.

You should talk about this publicly, start a blog or make KZfaq videos about the things that you've noticed. Help people see the truth of how ignorance is destroying our country.

If he didn't have a clue about molecular genetics, then that's a clue in itself.

There are a plethora of wealthy individuals who don't like to be questioned and send their attorneys in to shut people up. Evet heard of a "slap" suit?

Not just corporations - during the 9 years that Stephen Harper was Prime Minister of Canada, scientists on the government payroll were muzzled and had their research terminated if it conflicted with his party's dogma.

Yes, and ideologically motivated NGOs, too. Many governmental institutions have been infiltrated in highest places.

worse would be corporate backed scientists

Lawyers, Guns, and Money.

The eternal jackboot

Would you mind to expand further upon this? What is your name and what where the principles?

I also thought that would be mentioned. As far as I know they weren't just sued but were facing six years in jail, although I think they were acquitted before actually facing any jail time.

It was also a bit different than not predicting an earthquake. There were warning signs of an impending earthquake but the scientists (rightfully) said that the warning signs were unlikely to result it a full scale earthquake. But the unlucky happened and people died because it was interpreted that "unlikely" = "not going to happen" by a goverment official who told the public not to prepare for an earthquake. As far as I'm aware that government official did get jailed.

@@FrostedCreations Thank you for the clarification. I had forgotten the details (which is why I stuck to the ‘Wasn’t there something’ line 😇) I found it really scary at the time that scientists could even be put on trial for being wrong (in a non-neglectful way), let alone for pointing out that some events can only be statistically predicted.

Yes, indeed, I meant to include this but seems I forgot!

The availability of information never was bigger than today.

a fragment indeed. So brace. and attain the sources of getting joy of the highest possible class, like hobby.

@@O_Lee69 nor of disinformation...

Almost everyone in science and law is 'owned' by the rich and powerful. The 'enlightenment' is over and we are heading into a new dark age.

@@O_Lee69 Information is systematically being hidden by biased search engines and censorship. Read the Westminster Declaration 2023, it highlights these dangerous developments.

Goooood morning!

👍🏼

Good morning

Good night, night owls..

As it's closing in on midnight - good night 😴

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton thinking his opinion should supersede that of doctors, a judge, and the pregnant patient is the epitome of this kind of arrogance.

@@EleneDOM Ken Paxton is doing his job, he going after hoaxters and grifters.

The British mantra was "we will follow the science" - that was before the science had caught up with the pandemic and I saw precious little following. As the advice changed from week to week (or was it week to weak?) all it did was discredit science. All the competent scientific comment emphasised uncertainty, emphasised the precautionary principle and was blatently ignored.

The UK job center uses MBTI? That’s insane. The only reliability of that assessment is if somebody knows HOW to answer the “assessment” to get their desired result… which means they’re actively looking for and employing liars.

INTJ Architect here...I used to put that on my CV because I thought it flattering. I doubt it helped me get jobs though...still surprised it is a thing in the job center. @@TarzanHedgepeth

> shut up or they will dock my benefits. is that legal? Sue them back

are u for real that UK uses MB tests officially? thats crazy, those are literall just zodiac for redditors.

@@TarzanHedgepeth I think MBTI can give individuals useful insights about how they process the outer world, but I sure wouldn't use it for employment purposes.

Me too. Its hateful to be eliminated for doing the right thing. Sabine, your argument can be expanded to organisations that are ostensibly independent investigators required to use principles of scientific reasoning, yet while the investigtor is expected to be answerable for thier conclusions, their logic can be changed during the review process.

this is an actual hex, by the way.

...and then died of COVID. A damn shame, that.

Reminiscent of the quote attributed to Richard Feynman, “I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered, than answers that can’t be questioned”. During the Covid pandemic scientists and average citizens that questioned the SARS-CoV-2 origin, vaccine efficiency & side affects, usefulness of face masks, and effectiveness and necessity of lockdowns were often summarily dismissed as conspiracy nuts. When they persisted they were often ostracized, fired from their jobs, or jailed. All for being “ahead of the curve” and asking difficult questions.

*With COVID... If even that. @@MrSunrise-

And the worst part it's 'working'

@@Nat-oj2uc It isn't working, that is the thing, in the end they come with guns and force they way thru. The social service din't like that I was taking care of myself when my mother was at the hospital, so they came with guns and kidnap me just to force me into their completly and utterly disfunctional system, all they do all day is bullshit and force their way around and hope people just cave in into hopelessness so you stop questioning and just follow their shit mindlessly, it is nothing but a cult. Edit: missed the quotation marks, sorry for missreading you, got a bit emotional due to having to hear the "this is just working because it follows the system" bullshit for far to long and far to much.

Virtue signalling is a disturbing thing. People do it to elevate themselves at the expense of others.

@@jonwelch564 they also do it to test each other for trust, kinda like signalling their "side" and it can even be like an inside joke for people who feel superiority complexes, getting off on their shared narcissism

Wait are you trying to say that you don't believe Letby is guilty? And statistics prove that she is innocent? This actually sounds crazy because evidence found in her own home and how she was the only person present at all deaths was what proved that she was guilty. Actually the first time I heard anyone think that she is not guilty besides her own friends and family.

@@kerycktotebag8164 Claiming virtue signaling against an opponent is often a tactic for discounting fact and contributing factors.

Unfortunately, being objective is not one of humanity's virtues.

satanism. has destroied everyting.

So long as it doesn't prove mainstream Science to be UNscientific!

tobacco companies funding studies about how tobacco is somehow beneficial, and getting doctors to promote use is what first comes to mind. or mc donalds and coca cola funding studies about meat or sugar.

Not just companies but also the government.

@@nahoj.2569 exxon BP and shell on climate change

Reproducibility by the scientific community should be enough to invalidate such studies, it's just that consumers aren't all that concerned with keeping up with the current scientific literature, either because they don't understand the jargon or because they don't have enough time to read scientific journals while working three jobs and barely getting by.

"Scientists should be on tap, not on top..."

🤣

It goes back a long way - a fairly recent case was that Galileo chap...

For most working people, insurance pays.

Rules to regulate rules?Who should determine what is frivolous or not?

@@gomes2151 there should be a group of people who are nonbiased and have interest in either side only too Judge wether a case is worthy of being taken too court or wether it is just another case with no merit simply too waste everybody's time. There should be strict punishment for people who file lawsuits under false pretenses.

@@gomes2151 Committees of legal experts - law professors, judges, honest lawyers.

@@lightbearer313and who will elect the committee and give lawyers honesty certificates?

@@MikeKrasnenkov Many committees would be required , and unlike the typical American practice they wouldn't be elected but appointed, by trustworthy people (yes, such exist even in Trump dominated America there are still many honest and honorable people around, one mustn't be totally cynical or there is no hope). There are many lawyers that are not Republican stooges, but people who believe in serving justice.

It's noted on the Wikipedia page on this Gill guy that the Letby defense team had rejected his "advances" and decided not to have him as an advisor.

@@vaakdemandante8772 I have just edited my post to make it clear, that my opinion is based on speculation. Criminal cases are difficult, the procedures are strict and everybody who is involved in the criminal case is under the rule of the judge. If Mr. Gill was a wittnes or an expert in the case against Lucy Letby, then his right to speak about the case publicly may be limited to what the judge allowed him to say.

It is illegal to publish speculation or personal analysis of a case during the lead up to, and during a case because it is considered that it threatens a fair trial by influencing jury members, either actual or prospective. It is not illegal to do the analysis, or work with others on the analysis or to present that evidence to the defence or prosecution teams. The jury are legally required only to deal with the evidence as presented in court. Indeed jury members have been imprisoned for doing their own research on the evidence, which has sometimes caused trials to be abandoned at great cost.

Exactly, Sabine had a really good argument for all the other cases but that last one really was contempt of court! Fair trials are really important!!!

@@TheEulerID To me the problem seems not to be with the blog post, the person behind it or the threat agianst the right to a fair trial, but with the whole concept of "jury". How can there be a fair trial when the people responsible for the assessment of your guilt have no legal background, no training in the field whatsoever and, aside from feeling it to be their civic duty, no real motivation to do proper research into the facts of the case? Also, how the heck are they going to be able to make an informed decision about a suspect's guilt if they're not allowed to do research into it? Isn't the very fact that they're looking into the case and at the facts in and of itself research?

Thanks for being here, you're all part of my Saturday, too!

Social Psychology, come on now, that's not real science.

​@@buzz-eswhat makes you think that?

@@buzz-esI’m a freight relocation pilot and psychology is indeed a science…. I think? Well I gotta go!!!! Flaps at 3°

​@@buzz-es"I don't understand it, so it can't be real!"

@@buzz-esYou must be the guy that refers to himself as "alpha male" unironically.😅😂

Also sue their lawyers for participating in the scheme when they should have known better. They are accessories to the crime at the very least.

If you are going to do that, you have to accuse the Bar of Continuing Criminal Enterprise and Monopoly Under Color of Law and Unlawful Conversion of of government property and offices into instruments of crime. @@JohnShalamskas

Firefox had that problem years ago.

They eroded my trust by taking the government's money to do the government's work. That politicized science because politics works by buying off people.

you mean "lawfare"?

“Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits), or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”

And who is it that has the most money for litigation? The government. Try taking on the DOJ over anything whether you're right or not.

It's rather that the science has to retrospectively justify the government position.

Perfect! Thanks for the smile, (inside joke?)

LOL, tf?

I think you might find that it was somebody who was the plaintiff in a case about lack of secularism in UK schools who list a case, possibly on admission policies in faith schools. There have been a number of those. However, I know of know case where a scientist was successfully sued (or even sued at all) for speaking out about the lack of secularism in UK scools, and I even have trouble thinking of what grounds there would be for suing in the first place. Perhaps some accusation of libel against an admissions board? It is not even a question of science. The Italian case was about geologists underplaying the risk of an earthquake, at least according to the prosecuting authorities.