http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?ex=1350964800&en=f30ec63e2ceba123&ei=5088

Great article. glad to see it in the mainstream press.

Yes, I did see that story. Neat—thanks for posting it! Good for Homer Jacobson.

misfit of joy - 28 October 2007 11:13 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?ex=1350964800&en=f30ec63e2ceba123&ei=5088

Great article. glad to see it in the mainstream press.

I wonder if a scientists prefers to admit to be incorrect because his ideas appear to support religion over the discovery that his findings were founded in error.

The article leans on the tendency to suggest that if a new discovery with solid factual evidence one day supports religion, such discovery “must be hidden”?

Why?

I guess that as long a discovery is scientifically sound and enjoys of factual evidence, the knowledge of it must be published regardless of its use as a support to religion or to anti-religious statements.

Of course, in this case this scientist seems to recognize also some mistakes inside his theory which invalidate his conclusions, still the look for a review by him appeared to be motivated because he discovered that the religious side was favoured with his theory.

Fortunately, the end of this story reveals that he was in error and his theory won’t be used as point of reference. This is what it counts at last and I’m glad as well of being in knowledge of the public.

Where does the article claim that we should hide experimental results that “support religion”?

“The article leans on the tendency to suggest that if a new discovery with solid factual evidence one day supports religion, such discovery “must be hidden”?

Why? “

but that’s the thing, his 55 paper did not have solid factual evidence to support religion. There are two issues with it, one he was wrong, and two creationist where using it as proof of divine intervention. Even if his paper was correct it still would not have proven divine intervention.

From reading it, I didn’t get the impression that the article suggested that anyone felt that evidence in support of religion “must be hidden.”

I agree that the article does not suggest anything about hiding facts that might support religious ideas. I think what conquer is referring to is the quote by a creationist who said scientists might “get in trouble” for producing results that support creationism and suggested obliquely that that might have been the motive for the retraction. I think that is exactly what you’d expect a creationist to say, but I don’t buy it. The “embarrassment” the author felt had to do with the errors and misuse of his paper, not pressure from the scientific community not to give support to theri religious “enemies.”

Personally, I would welcome any genuine evidence supporting religious ideas and/or creationism.  If compelling enough, I would change my views on the topic.  I suspect this to be Homer Jacobson’s view as well.

He seemed, to me, a little ticked off that his work was used as false evidence of something that it did not represent.  I don’t blame him.