Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology,sci.physics,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.bio,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!ellis!pam5
From: pam5@ellis.uchicago.edu (Peter A. McNamara)
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Message-ID: <1994Dec2.021214.3658@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: pam5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
References: <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi> <D01FKx.E41@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 02:12:14 GMT
Lines: 32
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96849 sci.psychology:30783 sci.physics:102072 sci.philosophy.meta:15207 sci.bio:23600 comp.ai.philosophy:22998

In article <D01FKx.E41@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi> grohn@finsun.csc.fi (Lauri Gr|hn) writes:
>>
>>	Why? Why should one write books for great public about premature
>>hypotheses and speculations? 
>
>Why not?  The public may find it interesting, and why should they
>have only the distorted view of science that results from seeing
>only finished results?
>
>>The matter is even more unethical if [...]
>
>I find your position extremely odd.  Why is it even slightly unethical
>to speculate in public?
>

Because, to the general public, statements by scientists are viewed
as having some sort of truth to them.  Unfortunately, there are a
large number of people out there who hear speculative scientific
theories, and believe them-- just because of the term 'scientific'
above.

It is also not always clearly stated just how 'preliminary' such
findings are...  Take the obvious 'cold fusion' example.  The
fact that you know what I'm talking about illustrates the media
hype which can arise from such public pronouncements.

>-- jd
>

Pete

