Site Referrals

| 6 Comments

According to Blogdex right now, The Panda's Thumb is the 11th most referenced blog today. We were 15th yesterday.

According to Blogpulse, we're #8.

And according to Technorati, we now have 111 links from 68 blogs, which is enough to push us into "marauding marsupial" territory. I've never seen a marsupial maraud before, but it can't be a pretty sight.

6 Comments

Since you are “dedicated to … defending the integrity of science and science education in America and around the world” I wonder if you will comment on the hatchet job your learned collegues in the scientific community did to the initial reports of cold fusion? I posted the same question in an earlier comment thread, where it was ignored. I suspect you won’t address the evidence here, either, because it is a very ugly example of how the scientific establishment deals with paradigm shifting data, data that can only be explained by rethinking a number of fundemental assumptions that underlie modern physics, (and therefore modern biology), and that isn’t exactly on topic for the purposes of your blog.

The Department of Energy is now officially reviewing the data (see today’s NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/s[…]/25FUSI.html). It was generated by experiments conducted over the past 15 years by respected scientists in accredited institutions. It shows the scientific community who attacked the earliest reports (Pons, Fleishman, 1989) in the absolute worst possible light. It isn’t going to go away.

Brew - please note the subject matter of the blog.

While concievably interesting, your posts are spam. Go peddle them on sci.physics or what have you.

As to the (rightly) growing popularity of the site, for all the idiots on the web, there are also a great many people pissed off at the attempt by certain interested parties to take science education back to the dark ages.

Now all thats needed is a blog dedicated to bashing pomos in anthropology. =)

Hey, I didn’t write the “Raison d’etre.” I just happened to notice that whoever did, wrote it broadly enough to encompass “defending” the “integrity” of “science,” with no limitations given. If you want to argue that this is limited to evolutionary biology, I suggest you ask the owners of the site to rewrite their Raison d’etre.

Cold fusion represents just one example where one might reasonably call into question the “integrity” of “science.” There are others that apply more directly to evolutionary biology. However, these other examples, (at least the ones of which I am aware), aren’t as graphic, aren’t currently being re-examined by the Department of Energy, and therefore don’t serve as the best examples of how little “integrity” “science” can sometimes exhibit.

So don’t pretend this is “spam.” Issues of politics in science cut to the heart of how we determine reality. Questions about how research gets funded, how anomolous data is treated by the scientific establishment, how articles are selected (or not selected) in journals like Nature and Science; are all relevant when debating proponents of any non-empirical approach towards describing physical reality, be they “intellegent design” adherents, creationists, or Wahabbi terrorists.

In other words, before you remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must remove the log from your own.

Brew: I am simply not sure anyone here is qualified to judge this new batch of evidence about cold fusion. Even if we had some nuclear physicists on board, I doubt that they would be, since as far as I can tell these data have yet to be published. As for the original evidence, it seems to me that the problem was not in the scientific “establishment” (whatever that is) suppressing it, but rather its proponents and the media by-passing the normal process of scientific experimental confirmation. Have you read the book “Bad Science” by Gary Taubes? It makes for very informative and entertaining reading - though perhaps too slanted against Fleischmann and Pons for your tastes. To be honest, if cold fusion had been true, I don’t see how it would have been possible to suppress the evidence - too much was a stake, economically and scientifically, besides the egos of a few primary characters. I’d wait for the result of this new cycle of review before throwing around accusations. I’d be the first to cheer if it finds we can do without the internal combustion engine.

On Maurading Marsupials.

Watch a Tasmanian Devil in action some time. Think of a 6 month old infant with fangs and claws.

And, they like to cuddle. Kid you not. Tazies love to cuddle and will bond with their keeper. Get the feeling God not only has a sense of humor, it’s downright strange?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ed Brayton published on March 25, 2004 1:37 PM.

Here we go again was the previous entry in this blog.

Finding Your Niche is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter