Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1448 sci.misc:2294
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!wyse!mips!prls!pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
From: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: The press, and seekers of notoriety are the culprits.
Keywords: skepticism debunking fear
Message-ID: <504@metapsy.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 88 01:19:59 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <668@ns.UUCP> <495@metapsyy.UUCP> <35118@aero.ARPA>
Reply-To: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Metapsychology, Woodside, CA
Lines: 32

In article <35118@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes:

>I think it's because such persons insist on (or have the unfortunate
>problem of) widespread press coverage.  It shakes the credibility of
>science in the eyes of the public when speculations that turn out to
>be mistakes are given such a hullaballoo, especially when the "new,
>revolutionary theory" involves areas whose proponents have included
>shysters, frauds, and unscientific mercenaries.

Then the correct target is the press for makiing a hullabaloo, not
the scientists who have the misfortune to be given such publicity.
Unfortunately, Randi's dramatic style is tailor-made for press
coverage, and he apparently seeks such coverage, whereas scientists
generally do not. It is he that gives science a bad name by attacking
scientists in public.

>It's a truism to me that extraordinary claims require extra-
>ordinary proof.

No argument there.  But they don't require attack.

>How about updating the argument to use someone whose theory was
>wrongfully suppressed by the scientific commuunity and later
>validated?

How about Semmelweiss? (If the medical community counts as
scientific)
-- 
--------------------
Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301