Recent replies to "Standing up for Science"

Reply from Shalini Sehkar

Shalini Sehkar — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:45:14 -0000

Hence the stereotype of the ‘mad scientist’.

Reply from Boris Cvek

Boris Cvek — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:31:38 -0000

I dont believe in “Science” as a dogmatic doctrine, but I love science as an “andventure of mind”, where even new breaking ideas can look like a “pseudoscience”. Nonconformism, open mind and playfulnes are, in my view, conditio sine qua non for any genuine research :). Like (reputedly) Bohr used to say: more mad is the better :).

Reply from Nicolau Werneck

Nicolau Werneck — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:26:08 -0000

My favourite controversial websites are this one about AIDS (it has not been updated in some years), and this one related to the Fomenko theory for a new chronology.

Those two websites really cought my attention. I believe they help at least to incentivate skepticism in general… Either skepticism for the “mainstream theories” or for the “alternative” ones. Hopefully not bringing citizens to the edge of paranoia. But again, isn’t science itself a form of controlled paranoia? :)

Reply from Matt Brown

Matt Brown — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:50:12 -0000

Well, maybe this Nature Network forum could evolve into such a space.

Post each new bit of dubious science as a seperate forum topic, and we can discuss.

Reply from Bronwen Dekker

Bronwen Dekker — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:56:02 -0000

When reading this post I was reminded of Snopes.com a website dedicated to determining whether the origin of a story was a real event/a true finding. Perhaps we should start a similar website where (invited??) experts can give their opinion on scientific stories/assertions. Perhaps this website exists! What is its address?

[This Snopes article on bottled water would be one of the types of things covered.]