From: Damien Broderick (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jan 04 2006 - 12:25:04 MST
At 12:06 PM 1/4/2006 -0500, John K Clark wrote:
> > Something tells me that you've never even *seen*
> > a peer reviewed parapsychology journal
>You are absolutely positively 100% correct, and until an article in one
>of them is cited in a real science journal I never will. Life is short
>and it is imposable to read everything
It's very understandable that you don't wish to spend time reading material
you assume in advance to be nothing but "BULLSHIT" -- I feel the same way
about the supposedly learned periodicals published by "creation scientists"
and "intelligent designers" (although I did take the trouble to read Behe's
On the other hand, it's not a terribly persuasive basis for denouncing the
probity of particular journals when other intelligent and skeptical people
like me and Richard are citing them at least somewhat favourably.
I'm pretty sure I'm nearly as smart and cynical as you are, in general;
Loosemore and I both have Ph.D.s in academic disciplines, which speaks to
the latter claim if not the former. :) I recommend reading what are
proffered as the best examples of what you wish to denounce (but admit that
you have never read) *before* climbing into the pulpit. Nor do I think this
suggestion is an amazing breakthrough in epistemology and scholarship.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT