> Scientific Journals - you're putting New (political)
> Scientist in the same category as bona-fide "science
> journals"?
>
> Shame shame ...

1.    No. I wasn't. That is a different issue that I'll deal with in 2.
below.

Take the statement at face value.
What I was saying is that Science is about NOT making hard statements of
fact. (Even, about NOT making hard statements of fact). When you get hard
statements is usually when the trouble begins. All too often the place where
Science goes off the rail is when theories become "received facts" & attain
almost God-like reverence.

No examples from current "Science" will be provied of course :-)

2.    Yes & no. I consider that New Scientist is a good source of Scientific
knowledge, but that is entirely independent of my comments. Like ALL current
publications the mind set, world-view and general perspective need to be
kept in mind. NS is of course much more populist than the proceedings of
learned societies and the like but also generally much more wide ranging (as
one would reasonably expect).

3.    Which of New Scientists proclamations or positions do you find
politically (presumably) unacceptable.
Maybe their ongoing warnings about the dangers of Genetic Engineering ? :-)




        Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.