Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1469 sci.misc:2333
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!decwrl!pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
From: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Strange results in Nature article (fallout...)
Keywords: skepticism debunking fear homeopathy
Message-ID: <507@metapsy.UUCP>
Date: 6 Aug 88 06:38:35 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> <35415@aero.ARPA>
Reply-To: sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Metapsychology, Woodside, CA
Lines: 22

In article <35415@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes:
>	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?

Sure.  But without the imputations of unethical behavior.  A simple publication
of the failure to duplicate the experiment would suffice.  I guess part of the
problem is that the press likes juicy stories and therefore might not print a
simple disproof unless someone flamboyant is involved.  But anyone who gets
their scientific knowledge through the media is unlikely to have an accurate
view of the state of the art anyway....

-- 
--------------------
Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301