geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.
Not here

Mine aren't.
Senility must be wonderful


Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there
was a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth
loss could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a
thing of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way to
keep in touch

What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser beams
and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...

That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong

True. Just that no-one gets the chance to refute or analyse in any
meaningful way that the waffle published in NS is aything more than a
fuzzy opinion. Every other journal has a panel of peer-reviewers, why
doesn't NS?

I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,

unless they are terminally sad, anyway

Or seriously interested in current science in all it's difficult, dull
and mentally challenging glory, and not just in posing as an armchair
expert down the pub in front of your mates.

oh ... as you were