I agree with Sir Robert Winston here. The Royal Society has miscalculated if it thinks denying opportunities to even respond to questions about whacky alternatives does anything for the understanding and credibility of science.
What, Why & How do we Know ?
I agree with Sir Robert Winston here. The Royal Society has miscalculated if it thinks denying opportunities to even respond to questions about whacky alternatives does anything for the understanding and credibility of science.
I agree wholeheartedly – anything to “further a reasoned debate”. This action, along with the censorship of any reasoned debate, such as on blogs like this one, should be discouraged and openly criticized.
Excuse my scepticism Glenn (in view of our past history), but I will be the judge on my blog of when your “open criticism” is part of reasonable debate. The key word being “further”.
But thanks for the effort, sincerely.
BTW, nice try also Glenn, because there was no “censorship” in the case in the news story .. just a mutual agreement to part company after a misquotation / misunderstanding, which undermined trust and credibility.
Read more carefully “if it thinks denying …” No-one was physically prevented or excluded from anything.