Gareth Owen wrote:
Or you could look in scientific journalists. You will find a great many scholarly papers supporting GW, and comparitively very few that do not. They may be wrong, but they're not really sharply divided.
Then that's what we should say, of course. It's really a bit much for _Wikipedia_ to leap from that to saying that the other side is "incorrect" or that what they are saying is "obviously false".
Don't judge cutting edge science by what appears in the popular press. If you want to know what scientists are thinking, look in journals.
I think that's right, but I also think that one difference between an encyclopedia and a journal is that an encyclopedia has to hold to a much higher standard of proof before declaring something to actually be the case. Journals can afford to be partisan and sloppy in a way that we can't.
--Jimbo