After l'affaire Heffernan, I was curious to see what, if any, letters to the editor would appear in the NY Times. The Sunday Magazine printed two letters, both critical of Heffernan, which suggests to me, that there were very few, if any, supporters of Heffernan's position (An aside: anyone know if the letters actually make their way to Heffernan? Just wondering).
I like this point:
If some bloggers sound desperate and strident, it's possibly because even into the 21st century, only 39 percent of Americans believe in evolution and one out of five believes the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Indeed.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It was a busy weekend here - figuring out whether we were moving, my sister was visting, other friends were visiting, we hit the local County Fair, worked in the garden, you know, life. So until just now, I hadn't paid any attention to the empty meanderings about science blogs in the Times…
I had been considering, over the weekend to write a navel gazing post about The State of ScienceBlogs and Its Relationship to the Mad Biologist. And then Virginia Heffernan of the NY Times wrote a quote picking article about ScienceBlogs, thereby screwing up my weekend blogging (so much stupid, so…
"You can't exactly bake a man to your specifications... A hybrid of Einstein, Tarzan and Inge Meysel doesn't exist." -Peer Steinbruck
Of course, if you create enough chances, all the things that could eventually happen will come to pass. This is as true for human beings as it is for the physical…
Someone sent me another stupid Jewish article. It's still not the
wonderful relativity denial that I lost, but it's pretty delicious as
stupidity goes. This time it comes from Chabad. For those who aren't
familiar with it, Chabad is a Chasidic organization, which originally
formed around people…
Be that as it may, but I am very concerned about the number of science writers who are strident and won't play nicely in the centre of the discourse.
Oh, wait.