Comments on: In support of a diligent, relentless critique of creationism https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/09/in-support-of-a-diligent-relen/ Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:05:10 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 By: bo moore https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/09/in-support-of-a-diligent-relen/#comment-522835 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:05:10 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/09/in-support-of-a-diligent-relen/#comment-522835 Is it okay to refer to a book I have written on the problem of magical thinking, it’s origins in the brain, and it’s resurgence in the U.S.?

]]> By: Paul Browne https://gregladen.com/blog/2010/09/09/in-support-of-a-diligent-relen/#comment-522834 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:45:42 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/09/09/in-support-of-a-diligent-relen/#comment-522834 Excellent argument there Greg, which of course could apply equally to just about any other area of controversy in science.

There is a tendency among some in the scientific community to avoid responding to threats, or addressing anti-science deceit, because of a fear that doing so will just give their opponants more publicity and/or credibility. In reality in most cases the opponants of science are going to get their publicity anyway, by failing to comment or respond we just ensure that the publicity is more favourable to their point of view.

Allyson Bennett wrote on the perils of “no comment” in animal research controversies yesterday http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/09/08/speaking-up-who-does-%E2%80%98no-comment%E2%80%99-work-for/ , but the same could just as easily be said about the intitial response to the CRU hack by UEA, or the failure of the virology community to produce a rebuttal of Peter Duesberg’s claims in the early years of the HIV epidemic. It can take a long time and a lot of effort to regain ground lost in a few days.

]]>