Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

Re COMMENTS

To comment on a particular essay or blog post,
please press the ”Comment” link at that post, not here.
Comments sent to this page will only appear on this page.

All comments are moderated, and may be edited.

I have a  great preference for comments that are
concise, substantive, and not ad hominem.

Giving a fake e-mail address makes it less likely that your comment will be accepted.

There is an automatic spam filter, which sometimes
marks a comment incorrectly as spam, and I don’t always catch that.

If your substantive comment doesn’t appear, try sending it again, or e-mail me direct. If you want to correspond via my e-mail address on my home page, please understand that I can only respond if the e-mail address you give is a valid one. For example, e-mails cannot be delivered to “anonymous@anonymous.com”.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Re COMMENTS”

  1. Henry, I have just begun reading your text, “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine”. I’ve studied the claims made by the Thunderbolts Group for a decade now, and I am intent on creating a website which will map out ALL of the controversies of science. I just started web development school this week, and I’ve been trying to think of what a site like this would look like already for four years now. David Talbott and Wal Thornhill appear to appreciate my approach.

    If you have a free moment, please read my proposal here:

    Note that you can zoom into the image with a mouse. Please let me know if you have trouble in this regard.

    There is no business plan here. This is simply the idea itself. It still needs to be adapted to one or more target audiences (graduate students? the public? science journalists?), and there are some user interaction aspects which still need to be figured out. But, I am convinced that this design represents an important first step.

    I believe that this design has the potential to resolve the issues you bring up in your book, but the details will matter quite a bit — which is why I am hoping that you will think about what I’m proposing, and provide some detailed feedback. We appear to want the exact same thing.

    • Henry Bauer said

      Chris Reeve:

      You may get some ideas also from the Institute for Venture Science.

      I would certainly like to see an on-line continually updated listing of contemporary controversies. A perennial problem will be what not to include: are there any counter-mainstream claims that are so off-the-wall or lacking evidence that they should be excluded? Say scientific creationism or intelligent design?
      My suggestion would be that nothing be excluded, but that topics like those two (one?) be listed in a sub-group WITH FULL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED — by the website’s moderator or advisers — PROPER SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES.

      Re user interaction, of course all comments need to be moderated, and again you will be faced with decisions: who is so crackpottish a crackpot as to be censored?

      But do go ahead, just a comprehensive listing would be a valuable resource.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s