Unsolved Problems

[David Maes]

Hi David;
I think it is safer to stay with medical doctors that have participated in a formal medical education. I just don’t like the idea of having to pay the middleman between the licensed drug dealer and the drug user.

Most scientist are extremely conscious of their reputations and strive to be professional in all they do; like any profession though, there are those who seek only fame and fortune regardless to the cost of their reputation. It is disappointing that we cannot separate science from the human nature of the scientist; I keep trying though. Curing the misconceptions, ignorance, and out right fabrications is a good place to start. If we do that then the “Unsolved Problems” simply become “Unsolved Questions”.

Dave, in our country every licensed drug dealer (chemist) had an academic education in pharmocology and went to university for it.

In our country only the licensed drug dealer is allowed to deliver homoeopathic products. And most of the licensed drug dealers in our country do deliver homoeopathic products!
Are they all deceivers?

[David Maes]

I also think that a science magazine will never publish things which would count against their readers, i.e. the science community. For example if the science community is against homoeopathy, then the science magazine will only publish things which count against the homoeopaths.
And why would the science community be against the homoeopaths?
Well, that's rather simple; each time someone goes to a homeopath, he doesn't go to a scientist, so scientists lose money in that case.

If some websites are against homoeopathy, it could also be it's just a matter of principle and not of money.
Well, it would be a really sad world, if it would be just all for the money, wouldn't it?
I apologize for my little conspiracy theory, but when re-reading it, I think it's kind of funny .

Anyway, I still think that when someone goes to a doctor who practises homoeopathy, it means he doesn't go to a doctor who doesn't practise homoeopathy, which means the doctor who doesn't practise homoeopathy loses money.

[David Maes]

I still think the following is right:

"That's what I find the hard part; if I want to know something about physics for example, then I can't rely on myself cause I'm not a physicist.

So if I want to know something about physics, then I have to rely on what a physicist says. The only problem is, how can I be sure that this physicist tells me the truth?

I think we will never know."

And let's still not underestimate the following:
"Well; in life, it's all about the money."

[David Maes]

I think Scientific American or Discovery magazine publishes a list each year but I haven’t read them since the main stream science magazines abandoned common sense for more magazine sales.

Next to sceptic websites, I also found another website: www.senseaboutscience.org.uk

I think it will surely interest you. It also talks about peer review.

One of its trustees was the knighted Sir John Royden Maddox, John Maddox was a physicist and science writer. He was Editor of Nature, and the author of What Remains to be Discovered.

[David Maes]

I was surfing on Wikipedia and found the following:

'->Popular science: or 'literature of science' = interpretation of science, intended for a general audience.
A simplified representation of 'difficult' subjects from science, intended for a general audience.
Generally doesn't publish original research (this means new findings won't be published first in such a magazine).
No peer review

Formats: books, TV, web pages, magazine articles, CD-Roms, museums.

Examples: National Geographic, New Scientist, Scientific American, Discovery Channel.

The Science Museum in London, Technopolis.

Some common traits of popular science:
- Bridging the 'is-ought gap'
- Entertainment value or personal relevance to the audience
- Emphasis on uniqueness and radicalness
- Exploring ideas overlooked by specialists or falling outside of established disciplines
- Generalized, simplified science concepts
- Presented for an audience with little or no science background, hence explaining general concepts more thoroughly
- Synthesis of new ideas that cross multiple fields and offer new applications in other academic specialties
- Use of metaphors and analogies to explain difficult and/or abstract scientific concepts
- Very limited mathematical formulas or complicating details

Notable popularizers of science: Albert Einstein, Bill Bryson, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Gerard Bodifée.

->Scientific journal: = a journal in which scientific findings are published.
Meant for scientists.
Peer review

Examples: Nature, Science.

Interesting: www.skepp.be
www.senseaboutscience.org.uk

"What remains to be discovered" by Sir John Maddox.'

My opinion is that popular science indeed explains scientific issues to laymen, but the disadvantage is that popular science can also be written by a non-scientist who may have a limited understanding of the subject he is interpreting, what can lead to misleading science and maybe even cause pseudoscience.

And indeed, I also think the problem with a scientific journal is that a layman only has a limited understanding of the subject, which can lead to false interpretations.

[David Maes]

Another thing:
So I think that even a scientist who is specialised in some area, also has a limited understanding of something specialised outside his own area, which can also lead to false interpretations if he tries to understand this.

[David Maes]

I don't really know whether I have to believe in homoeopathy or not.

[David Maes]

Have a look on the following link on homoeopathy:

skepp.be/nieuws/who-warns-against-homeopathy-use

Also have a look at www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf

You know, this really diminishes my belief in homoeopathy.