Archy sums it all up in An object lesson in Wiki research. Nice to see a professional historian take a look at history of pseudoscience.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In the current issue of Antiquity is a review of G.G. Fagan's edited volume Archaeological Fantasies (available on-line behind a paywall). I reviewed this book favourably back in September: it's pretty much a skeptical attack on pseudo-scientific archaeology.
Antiquity's reviewer, however, doesn't…
There are 86 days until the Science Blogging Conference. The wiki is looking good, the Program is shaping up nicely, and there is more and more blog and media coverage already. There are already 105 registered participants and if you do not register soon, it may be too late once you decide to do…
Scientific facts are fun. But probably to a limited number of people.
It's more fun to know how scientists got those facts - their thoughts, motivations and methods. How they did it. Why they did it. Where did they get the idea to do it in the first place.
It's even more fun, for a broader number…
As you know you can see everyone who's registered for the conference, but I highlight 4-6 participants every day as this may be an easier way for you to digest the list. You can also look at the Program so see who is doing what.
John McKay is a historian who's been blogging on Archy for, like,…
To be fair, Arch doesn't really focus on pseudoscience, but on the inappropriate addition of material to Wikipedia.
The article is more about catastrophism, than Velikovsky per se. More about Velikovsky and pesudoscience and can be found in the "Pseudoscience" article at the Velikovsky Encyclopedia at:
http://www.velikovsky.info