On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:12 PM, "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" <[email protected]
> wrote:
I'm encouraged to see that debate concerning the pros and cons of the
controversial Widom Larsen theory has started opening up. I expect
to seecontroversy.
Controversy and especially reasoned debate is good and necessary. It's
good that errors or possibly misleading text in published papers is
pointed out, that's important.
However, we don't need more polemic that extrapolates from real or
merely perceived errors into reprehensibility and blame.
If evidence becomes conclusive that there is fraud (illegal) or
deliberate misrepresentation, sure, it's the duty of a journalist to
bring it into the light of public examination.
Sloppy work in this, though, is what we saw with Taubes. Excellent
writer who got stuck on a sensationalist theory and did a lot of
damage. He could have done a lot of good if he had been more careful.
He later did very good work with salt and diet. What led him astray
was attachment.
Meanwhile, since Krivit has written about alleged problems with the
heat/helium work, following generally the same line of approach as
Larsen, I'd like to know what Widom-Larsen theory predicts as to heat/
helium relationship. I'm not finding it easy to find.
