.
001. Stephen Fry [author, broadcaster]:
"it may seem like a small thing to some when claims are made without evidence, but there are those of us who take this kind of thing very seriously because we believe that repeatable evidence-based science is the very foundation of our civilization. Freedom in politics, in thought and in speech followed the rise of empirical science which refused to take anything on trust, on faith, on hope or even on reason. The simplicity and purity of evidence is all that stands between us and the wildest kinds of tyranny, superstition and fraudulent nonsense [guess what I'm thinking of?]. When a powerful organization tries to silence a man of Simon Singh's reputation then anyone who believes in science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation. All we ask for is proof. Reasoned proof according to the established protocols of medicine and science everywhere. It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as 'humility before the facts' — it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust."
002. Diana Garnham [The Science Council's Chief Executive]:
"delivery of professional health care should be based on science, not libel laws. It goes without saying that all professional health care scientists must be expected to base their professional practice on scientific methodology, encompassing both a rigorous evidence base and open peer review [guess what, for example, the NDs haven't done!]."
003. Richard Wiseman [author, Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology]:
"England's strict libel laws can deter individuals from speaking out against bad science, even when they have strong evidence for their argument. Simon's campaign deserves the support of everyone who cares about fighting pseudoscience."
Note: sign the support statement!
Note: sign the support statement!
No comments:
Post a Comment