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