Well, two new studies say so. My guess is that we can take this one to the bank but you can believe what you want.
In the unintentional hilarity department though, here is the opening line from the New York Times handling of the story:
Never mind that a study does not and cannot establish what is to count as "science".
In the unintentional hilarity department though, here is the opening line from the New York Times handling of the story:
In an unusual scientific about-face ...That such appalling scientific illiteracy was written and then got by the editorial process is about all the reason any of the increasingly smaller number of Times readers need to abandon the publication. It's not just that. historically speaking, there are all sorts of cases of reversals in science. It's also the use of the term about-face which betrays the degree to which the intellectuals at the time see the role of science as shoring up public policy positions.
Never mind that a study does not and cannot establish what is to count as "science".
No comments:
Post a Comment