In a message dated 1/24/2003 10:25:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I also went to his website and read the commission report. Quoting a > popular science magazine as one's primary source? Any > physicist who would > do that would be laughed out of the room. But the SA reviews were written by experts in environmental science and the complaints they raise about the book seem subtantive and specific. But it does seem very odd to me that a book could be viewed as some sort of violation of science. It is not a scientific article. It is a book. Can you name another book of this type that is peer reviewed? Would it seem rationale to accuse Daniel Dennett of scientific fraud in Darwin's Dangerous Idea"? Does it make sense to argue that he is a philospher not a scientist and therefore he cannot express his opinions about evolution? One reviews with books and argues about them but it is absurd to have an official organization decide that a book is a fraud. The reason one writes a book is to have one's opinion heard. A scientific article is part of the public discourse of science. Its methods are judged and publication is based on adherence to basic principles. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
