A propos Bill Dembski having to defend himself against a silly attack in top science mag Nature, a lawyer friend suggests taking a look at Nature‘s mission statement:
First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.
He wisely observes,
To report advances and serve scientists means not to report setbacks, or the exposure of fallacies in widely-held theories that would tend to put mainstream science in a bad light.
The press and public operate under the impression that Nature and Science magazines report any significant developments in science, whether positive or negative, and that both serve the public; but both publications are very up-front that they only report advances and successes because they exist to serve scientists.
Where I come from, we call that a lobby.
No, we don’t react with unilateral disbelief, but we do salt everything we hear from suchÃ‚Â sources with a healthy dose of skepticism. The little lambs of affirmation are, of course, duly shocked by our liberties, and they must be allowed to remain so.
On the Dover case, a science journal prefers alternative reality (it’s easier to live in)
How to talk to religious people and other evil morons
What your textbook dollars pay for – free advertising for materialism
By the way, I have been updating my post on Stuart Pivar’s struggles to get his non-Darwinian evolution theory heard. It gets pretty funny at times.
Yes, in The Spiritual BrainMario Beauregard and I do talk about near death experiences. And so?
Another man whose brain was mostly water found leading normal life … is thisÃ‚Â becoming aÃ‚Â fad or what?
Why only the cheatin’ hearts of your fellow humans can really deceive you