> This reminds me of the few scientists who claim to study "intelligent design" but can't get a single research article on the subject in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. The common explanation for this is that there's no viable science in the idea at all (as it's just a philosophy) and so no scientific experiments can be devised for it. The explanation from some of the ID folks, naturally, is that the science cabal wants to stifle them to keep the truth in the dark, so they refuse to review ID articles for publication.

I'm reminded of the crackpot sciences I've seen find a place in major scientific conferences. At the most recent World Congress on Pain, there were at least a dozen posters about transendential meditation, acupuncture, or other "alternative" medications. If something as wacky as TM can present at the major international conference about pain, pain systems, and pain medications, because they're actually testing TM using the scientific method and are reporting on their results, I seriously doubt that there's a global conspiracy amongst the world's physicists to blackball cold fusion researchers.

As for intelligent design proponents, I just wish they'd look up the definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis" and compare the two.

-Faux "this all makes better sense in my head" Pas