Jan 1, 2020 11:29 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 1, 2020 11:29 PM by C C.)
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...r-the-woo/
EXCERPT (Jerry Coyne): We’ve all observed National Geographic magazine going down the tubes and going soft on religion [...] and on woo. Apparently this issue, highlighted by fellow skeptic Phil Ferguson on his Facebook page, is about trying to validate woo, or at least about implying that there might be something to it. (Until recently National Geographic was owned by Fox, but as of this year it’s a Walt Disney property.)
Yes, it is sad, and I wasn’t pleased by the prospect of trying to find out what was between the covers [...] But I was saved from having to read this tripe by Hayley Stevens, who wrote an analysis and critique of the issue’s contents on her website, Hayley is a Ghost. Stevens researches claims of the paranormal, trying to find out what’s behind them (she says she isn’t committed to debunking these claims, but to understanding them).
You’re not going to be happy about National Geographic after you read what she wrote [...] Stevens’s beef is that the magazine blew a big chance to actually describe how scientific investigations have debunked many of these phenomena ... Apparently, the magazine is trying to leave the door open that. . . there may really be something out there. ... National Geographic has lost half of its subscription base in the last few decades, and so they must osculate religion, the numinous, and the supernatural to try to retain what credulous readers they can. As for me, I have no use for the rag. (MORE - details)
EXCERPT (Jerry Coyne): We’ve all observed National Geographic magazine going down the tubes and going soft on religion [...] and on woo. Apparently this issue, highlighted by fellow skeptic Phil Ferguson on his Facebook page, is about trying to validate woo, or at least about implying that there might be something to it. (Until recently National Geographic was owned by Fox, but as of this year it’s a Walt Disney property.)
Yes, it is sad, and I wasn’t pleased by the prospect of trying to find out what was between the covers [...] But I was saved from having to read this tripe by Hayley Stevens, who wrote an analysis and critique of the issue’s contents on her website, Hayley is a Ghost. Stevens researches claims of the paranormal, trying to find out what’s behind them (she says she isn’t committed to debunking these claims, but to understanding them).
You’re not going to be happy about National Geographic after you read what she wrote [...] Stevens’s beef is that the magazine blew a big chance to actually describe how scientific investigations have debunked many of these phenomena ... Apparently, the magazine is trying to leave the door open that. . . there may really be something out there. ... National Geographic has lost half of its subscription base in the last few decades, and so they must osculate religion, the numinous, and the supernatural to try to retain what credulous readers they can. As for me, I have no use for the rag. (MORE - details)
Modern technology folks.
