tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1409783413678004794..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Oops! Did New Scientist Goof Again?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32500815491590766832009-05-07T20:23:00.000-04:002009-05-07T20:23:00.000-04:00John S. Wilkins
Why is it a healthy sign that "th...John S. Wilkins<br /><br />Why is it a healthy sign that "they also didn't have any novelists"?Veronica Abbasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07037599323472646996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26184520720541071912009-05-07T08:24:00.000-04:002009-05-07T08:24:00.000-04:00In their defence, this is not a question of scienc...In their defence, this is not a question of science, but of the place of science in society, and typically scientists tend to be very bad at analysing that. On the other hand, they also didn't have any novelists or journalists, which is a healthy sign.<br /><br />Haack is a well known and very good philosopher of science, and Collins, although I don't like his sociological bent about science, knows scientific practice very well. Midgley is just a contrarian, IMO, and Graylin gis a Media Philosopher, although generally I find his views very good. Don't know Collini.John S. Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04417266986565803683noreply@blogger.com