Hi, Charlie, everyone. I agree with just about everything you say, Charlie.
I don't think the web site Curtis is so upset about is so horrible though. It is basically just a list of articles from reputable news sources on subjects of interest to the owner. Where he disagrees with the article he adds a disparraging introduction, but if you ignore the intoduction that and read the articles you actually get a balanced view point. As for global warming, I think it is pretty obvious that glaciers are receding and it is perfectly plausible that man made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to this, but I don't think this necessarly means the end of the world, or that it is even the most important issue in the world. Regards Wayne Eddy P.S. Is there a consensus on the list about how to post? I rather like top posting, but I will try to change if it is frowned upon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:12 PM Subject: Re: sucky sucky junkscience.com > > On 19/04/2008, at 10:48 PM, Wayne Eddy wrote: >> >> I wouldn't have thought that challenging the current othodoxy is clear >> evidence that someone is not one of the good guys or that they are >> doing >> wrong. > > Depends how you do it. Examples where someone challenges the orthodoxy > and is eventually proved correct are plenty (Look up plate tectonics, > relativity, black holes, _Helicobacter pylori_, endosymbiosis, > catastrophic impact causing mass extinctions, the age of the earth, > evolution by natural selection, helicentricty...). > > Where it goes wrong is where one challenges the "current orthodoxy" in > the media, in lobby groups, by writing books and doing lecture tours > instead of actually doing any work in a particular field. Particularly > where you're challenging the orthodoxy in a field you don't actually > know too well, like all the "scientists who doubt evolution" lists > that get touted about - lists that include physicists, engineers, > doctors, chemists but practically no working biologists... > > One way is science, the other is crankery. And it's not always obvious > straight away which is which, but it becomes clear in time, 'cause a > scientist who's right about something new and revolutionary will plug > away, and keep producing the results. Eventually, the results speak > for themselves, as in the cases I mentioned above. > > Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
