Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:03
Ben Laurie (ben@algroup.co.uk)
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:43:43 +0000
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Despite such (comparatively insignificant) phenomena as attempts
> of certain governments to suppress publications in certain fields
> on the claimed grounds of crime elimination, no control of discussions
> in natural science disciplines is known to me in the modern times,
> not even in totalitarian countries. Scientific discussions are
> hence fundamentally free. Anybody can voice his opinions, be these
> correct or false. Those who present false propositions will either
> be shown to be wrong or else (in my opinion worse for them) simply
> be ignored by the public. This is a ubiquitous natural selection
> process, through which genuine and good scientific results emerge and
> the false arguments perish.
Really? Perhaps you can explain the refusal of Nature (and other
journals, I believe) to publish anything written by Duesberg (the guy
who says HIV doesn't cause AIDS). Also, Los Alamos would seem to be an
obvious counter-example.
Cheers,
Ben.
-- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:18:03