Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1382 sci.misc:2192
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!dietz
From: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: What a fiasco
Keywords: skepticism debunking pseudoscience
Message-ID: <19778@cornell.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 88 19:49:01 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <1653@microsoft.UUCP> <2368@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: nobody@cornell.UUCP
Reply-To: dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY
Lines: 16

The fact that B. reacted to the debunking team by attacking their
knowledge of biology is to me quite damning.  Pseudoscientists often
defend their work by personal attacks on critics.

That Randi is a magician is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.  I don't care if
they used a witch doctor; what matters is that they spotted flaws
in B.'s methodology.  How they were spotted is transparent to the user.

Nature should not have accepted this paper.  By doing so, it has
given homeopathy undeserved recognition, and has tarnished its
own reputation.  In the unlikely event the findings are not the result
of error or fraud, publication in a lesser journal would have
sufficed.  Doing so would not have attracted as much media attention.

  Paul F. Dietz				dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu
  (Record one "yes" vote for establishing a Nobel Booby Prize.)