I believe that the strength of science lies in its openness. We accept anyone's considered viewpoint, and then encourage others to verify the truthfulness of it by experiment or otherwise. Do we wish to restrict access to information? May I suggest that we only demand that the new journal be of a professional level? I see that the IJCR will be peer-reviewed. Maybe some here, of open minds and good credentials, would offer to serve as reviewers? I thought I heard a disparaging remark about the bible. I wonder at times if we are any more objective in our views than the creationists that we criticize. How can we teach that most important skill, critical thinking, when we have so much trouble with it ourselves? It is very distressing to me to see how interests with money have so much power to influence in our society. You can disseminate any sort of propaganda, all you need is a PR firm and a good checkbook. We have to face the reality that access to unbiased information is a serious problem--because, after all, who will pay for it? My guess: the new journal will allow free access to its contents. There is the problem-- the GOOD information is published in the leading journals. But, the only people that can read these publications are the ones that have subscriptions or have ready access to a research library. How can we break this information imbalance? I think the acceptance of global warming as a real problem could have come years sooner if one or two good journals could have been accessible on the internet. Free exchange of knowledge and ideas is a wonderful, powerful thing. Who knows, maybe from that viewpoint, the new journal is a good thing. But, only for a people that can think clearly and seek truth for themselves-- we need better access to the mainstream journals. Ernie Rogers
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
