Robert wrote:
It's early yet, and time will tell whether Hoagland's paper gets widespread attention. I should point out, as delicately as I can, that you've done a little yourself to draw attention to it. Hard to say yet whether you pulled back from the precipice in time. I wouldn't have raised the question of a response if you hadn't started the ball rolling.

Alex writes:
Perhaps, but again I think you flatter me too much. I believe my few (admittedly derisive) comments about the "paper" were noticed only by people who would have read it regardless, as can be attested by the list (and tenor) of the respondents (e.g. the usual Cydonut suspects like Robert Williams, Lan Fleming, etc.). I doubt if my posts drew any more or less attention to the "paper" than would have been otherwise generated over time.

Robert wrote:
The important thing isn't to make the psuedoscientists go away, it's to challenge them for the hearts and minds of the public...

[snip]

From the point of view of the masses, the real scientists won't condescend talk to them, while the psuedoscientists are hungry to talk to anyone who can't escape. Who will win by default?

Alex writes:
I don't know if I necessarily agree with the "...the real scientists won't condescend [to] talk to them..." description. The vast majority of my colleagues are more than willing to (and often do) engage in education and public outreach (E/PO) as part of their scientific duties. The problem as I see it is that the "public" would rather receive a more "entertaining" message from the pseudoscientists than real scientists, which is nothing new. The old saying that "Truth is stranger than fiction" can be augmented with "but fiction sells." I hardly think, however, that scientists are solely to blame for this tendency. One can argue that the real scientists could make their presentations a little more "entertaining" as it were, but the bottom line is getting it right and not compromising one's principles just to appear "slicker" than the snake oil salesmen. In other words, compete "for the hearts and minds of the public", but up to a certain point.

Robert wrote:
We've already established that you don't consider this something appropriate for you, but do you think that, in principle, there's a general obligation for a scientist, somewhere, to "shoulder this burden"?

Alex writes:
The "shoulder the burden" riposte was directed solely at this latest Hoaglandism. In general, I feel that all scientists (myself included) have an obligation to counter misinformation whenever possible, which is one the main reasons I participate in online discussions. For example, a colleague of mine, Dave Tholen, who is an astronomer with the UH Institute for Astronomy (IfA), routinely engages in debate with pseudoscientists, cranks, etc. on USENET. I once asked him: Why? Was it because he got some pleasure from skewering ignorance? He said he didn't care about "skewering" anyone, that it was sufficient reward just to counter misinformation.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii