stat counnnter

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Good News

Steven Milloy at reports that longtime food, health and nutrition expert Sandy Szwarc now has her own blog called Junkfood Science. I recommend reading the "Introduction" and "About this blog" in the sidebar. She doesn't seem to be an objectivist but she brings to the table the same devotion to objective science as a Steven Milloy or John Brignell at Number Watch and Trevor Butterworth at STATS and Fred Singer at SEPP and many others.

She already has several post on the blog like "Can you really cleanse your way to better health? and "Weighty Issues."

I've read a number of her articles at Tech Central Station (TCS) and was impressed with all of them. My favorite was Bon Appetit. She has an interesting blogroll of links which I'll be checking out soon.

We desperately need more voices speaking out for rational science.


NS said...

Be careful about Steven Milloy. Two reasons:

Reason #1: Try thinking of the biggest "junk science" theory out there. Organic foods? Global warming? No. Intelligent design. Yet remains largely silent
on this topic. Their reason?:

"Not infrequently, the question is asked as to why does not weigh into the so-called debate concerning evolution/creation (there'll probably be trouble because I didn't capitalise that). The answer is simple: alleged
ID and Creation (there, better?) are matters of faith with zero requirement for science nor proof. In fact, "He said it. I believe it. That's an end to it." leaves no room for debate, informed, reasoned or otherwise - it's faith and
perfectly sufficient for believers. The bottom line here is that, if you
believe, that's fine, as it is if you don't believe - just don't confuse belief with science. And no, we won't be answering e-mail on this."

In other words, they think believing in ID is fine, it's just not "science." That's a big cop-out.

Reason #2:

Mike N said...

ns: I know that Milloy is not an Objectivist and I would hesitate to seek his opinion on anything outside science. His tolerence of ID is common with many scientists who would rather stick to science and leave philosophy for others.

When I first started visiting his site I checked on a few of his referenced sources and he turned out to be correct. I trust his work on things like global warming and Ozone etc.. I was unaware of the quote problem you linked to so in that vein I will keep my eyes open. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I have yet to find any scientific evidence from Steve Milloy that wasn't accurate and I've been following his work since he began. He cannot tackle every issue surrounding junk science. There are enough "skeptic" groups who take on things like Big Foot, UFOs and ID. He's more into science than science fiction, I suspect. And his critics are mostly those with more political agendas than good science behind them. Science is inordinately unpopular.