Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1458 sci.misc:2317
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!elroy!scgvaxd!trwrb!aero!zeus
From: zeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Summary: public airing requires public rebuttal
Keywords: skepticism debunking fear homeopathy
Message-ID: <35415@aero.ARPA>
Date: 5 Aug 88 00:12:42 GMT
References: <1911@aecom.YU.EDU> <6445@megaron.arizona.edu> <492@metapsy.UUCP> <668@ns.UUCP> <495@metapsyy.UUCP> <35118@aero.ARPA> <504@metapsy.UUCP>
Sender: news@aero.ARPA
Reply-To: zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 16

In article <504@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>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.
	Let me be more specific.  If the news of some new breakthrough
	is disseminated to the public through the BIG media (not journals)
	but later proves to be erroneous, but the retractions and 
	disproofs come in the LITTLE media (journals), and meanwhile a
	profession that is at odds with the scientific or medical
	communities stands to profit greatly at the expense of consumers
	and society -- is the public well served?  Would they be better
	served if the BIG media were used to air the opposing opinions?
		Dave Suess			zeus@aerospace.aero.org