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