Robert wrote:
I think you're being a tad naive about politics and human nature. You can be sure that Hoagland would characterize the lack of a serious rebuttal as vindication. A quick pass highlighting a couple of blatant errors might be worse--Hoagland, sly debater that he is, could spin that into some "that's all they could come up with!" line.

Alex writes:
Frankly, I think you are overestimating the importance of the Hoagland and Bara "paper" (my diatribe notwithstanding) and its effect on normal, rational society. Other than the usual "loony" sites (e.g. Cydonia discussion groups, Art Bell, etc.) where has it appeared or even been mentioned? I did a quick survey of some of my colleagues and the vast majority hadn't heard of the paper, and moreover, really didn't care. Therefore, a "serious rebuttal" doesn't seem warranted, and in fact, would probably only draw the attention (and audience) that Hoagland desperately desires, especially in the wake of the MGS images showing his claims about "the Face" to be utter nonsense.

Robert wrote:
But nevertheless, it takes a rare combination of qualities to champion science in the public arena, and unfortunately there are no Carl Sagans around to do that dirty job any more. Given your strong feelings on the matter, I think it'd be a bad idea if you tried to shoulder that burden.

Alex writes:
You flatter me; I've never even considered "shoulder[ing] that burden." At any rate, the presence of a Carl Sagan countering their misinformation does not mean that pseudoscientists will disappear or even lose some of their appeal. In fact, one can argue that the pseudos (like Velikovsky) actually prospered from their being linked to Sagan in public debate.

Robert wrote:
I'm afraid we'll have to keep looking for a Champion of Science.

Alex writes:
Everyone should look into a mirror; it doesn't take a cult figure or a Svengali to enable someone to lift themselves from ignorance.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii