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!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Message-ID: <D01FKx.E41@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 16:38:56 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:96603 sci.psychology:30579 sci.physics:101759 sci.philosophy.meta:15113 sci.bio:23472 comp.ai.philosophy:22819

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?

-- jd

