Cheney Shill schreef:
--- "Daniel R. Tobias"
<dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004665.html
from traditional sources. As a result, those who consult
Google or
Wikipedia -- with an open-minded and skeptical attitude,
of course --
are likely to be better informed than those who rely on
sources like the BBC.
That seems a bit of an extreme extrapolation based on a
single case involving obvious and well-known psychic BS in
telepathy and BBC's partial hiding and down-playing
thereof. Not the kind of exhibition of statistical
sampling and cause-effect logic that one might hope the
better editors of Wikipedia would display.
It is extrapolation, but not that extreme. Language Log (which is a
great read, by the way) has published a number of bad BBC science
stories over the years; see
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003507.html .
Although it's not a scientific study, LL's comments are based on more
than this single incident.
Eugene