On BNET: Online porn struggles for profits
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 8 of 13:
Next »
« Previous
Yet often postures so
It actually apears in this news (and probably in the Nature report itself - that I didn't read), and it's not the 1st time, that a Nature study is presented as undoubtly, right when it judges its "peers" - which means, they are posturing as above the very risk of mistaking that they attribute to others (here Wikipedia and Britannica).

Paris, Mon 19 Dec 2005 17:44:15 +0100
Posted by: Michel Merlin   Posted on: 12/19/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

truth versus perception  hipparchus2001 | 12/15/05
Thanks for the Demonstration of Perception  nucrash | 12/19/05
Britannica peer review of Nature vs Wikipedia?  Michel Merlin | 12/16/05
Nature articles are peer reviewed  tic swayback | 12/16/05
See my reply below  Michel Merlin | 12/16/05
Why should Nature be over comparison?  Michel Merlin | 12/16/05
Nature is not above comparison  tic swayback | 12/16/05
Yet often postures so  Michel Merlin | 12/19/05
Why the avid debate?  StanB | 12/16/05
Congratulations!  nECrO_z | 12/16/05
It's not a matter of shich is better.  Haterock Davidsfather | 12/18/05
Clarity helps accuracy and truth  Michel Merlin | 12/19/05
It's not a matter of which is better.  Haterock Davidsfather | 12/18/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement