Steve Bennett wrote:
Yes, it was a bad example :) A better example might be a scientific
study which is criticised by a religious group. Science-minded editors would probably consider that criticism of little interest. Others might find it relevant. Similarly, a scientific evaluation of a paranormal claim might not be considered worth much of a mention by most editors of the paranormal article (presumably those interested in such things...)
Now, to really let my biases show, I would probably be a bad offender in these cases. I tend to consider scientific studies of paranormal or pseudoscience claims *not* to be relevant, as the mere fact of the study lends too much credence to the field. Probably why I keep well away from such articles :)
Sigh! I am clearly more likely to give credence to paranormal matters than you, but distinct and separate from the doctrine of religious groups. I have no reason to object to scientific evaluations of the paranormal. If, as you suggest, both sides of this divide avoid scientific evaluation, it is dificult to see how any progress can be made. It doesn't help that most scientific evaluation in this area tend to be remarkably inconclusive, and fail to give a knockout blow for either side.
Ec