Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Now, Jed, consider what you've just pointed out. The editors at Scientific American got it seriously wrong. Do you expect the editors at Wikipedia to do better?
No, I do not. Neither can be considered a reliable source of objective, scientific information, at least with regard to this subject. The structure, staff and traditions of these organizations preclude honesty.
Mind you, I still subscribe to Sci. Am., because it is well written and I learn a lot from it. But I take everything they say with a grain of salt. I always did. I have been a cynic all my life. Nothing that happened in the history of cold fusion surprised me, although the extent and duration of the controversy has disappointed me. I just hope the research survives and pans out eventually, but I am not optimistic that it will.
Every publication, and every person, has failings and blind spots. Sci. Am. is generally reliable about a wide range of subjects. You have realize that a few subjects will trigger an allergic reaction in them, and cause them to write irrational nonsense. For example, they still cannot bring themselves to admit they wrong about the Wright brothers in 1906. At every opportunity they still attack and belittle the Wrights, most recently in the current issue of the magazine, and in an unforgivable article in 2003. As Talleyrand said of the Bourbons, they forget nothing and they learn nothing.
- Jed
