Tom Nelson: New article from Don Hendershot

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Anonymous said...: Kudos to Don Hendershot for asking the question, "was science hijacked"?

Of course SCIENCE isn't explaining why the dropped everything and rant the original "fitz et al" ivorybill paper the way they did.

Hendershot has gone the furthest, Gorman bolts in the opposite direction and talks to the man with the stuffed woodpeckers at the american museaum of Nat history

and the dem gazette settles for a "we did make changes to the paper upon peer review" from a flack at Science ... oh we'll take that answer - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

my point in much of this discussion has been to focus on the scientific process that has been so abused in this case.

It is a straw man argument to talk about the division between believers and skeptics.

The team led by Fitz et al used its power and influence to gain preferential treatment in a prominent Science Journal. This is the story and the "whys" should be accounted for by the actors in the story.

There is no difference between the Fitz et al claims and the Collins claims at Fishcrow ... right down to the fuzzy video and the frame by frame voodo.; 5:14 AM, March 24, 2006

Tom Nelson