Skip to main content

New Scientist article pulled due to legal threat

The New Scientist article how to spot a religious agenda (which we recently discussed) has been self-censored because of a legal threat.

Any one know any more details?

Full text still available here.

Wiki info here.

PZ Myers comments here.

More comment here.

Comments

anticant said…
It did strike me as a rather witless article.

Is there any such thing as agenda-less communication? All communication is dsigned to attract attention, to persuade, to influence, or [too frequently] to coerce.

Identifying agendas, open or covert, is surely the essence of effective communication. There is nothing sinister about having an agenda, so long as you don't dissemble about its purpose and try to pass it off as something else [as Creationists do when attempting to get their beliefs taught as science].
March 17, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
It must be serious. New Scientist is arguably the best periodical on the planet. It's never been backward about reporting on 'attacks' on science and specifially groups who wish to change the way science is presented or taught, especially in the US.

Regards, Paul.
March 17, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Eternal Critic said…
Whether self censored or not, this censorship is entirely unjustified. It was an informative article which I found to be pretty much spot-on in all its points.

Too many people are oblivious to the agenda that creationists and ID pushers have in science, particularly here in the states. Terms like "academic freedom," sound really good if you don't dig deeper into the aforementioned agenda.
March 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said…
I've put another copy on my blog. I expect it's just because somebody mentioned in the article objects to being lumped in with creationists, so New Scientist is being pro-active by temporarily removing it while the complaint is investigated. Not a problem since the content is now elsewhere on the internet.
March 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Anonymous said…
Any idea of the likely suspects (complaints)?

It was in the magazine, so I wonder it the back issue is going to be halted too.,,
March 17, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Kosh3 said…
Frankly, it wasn't a very good article, and they would have been better off not publishing it. Anticant has it right in calling it witless.

But since they did publish, and have now withdrawn - I wonder what the legally objectionable part was??
March 18, 2009 at 5:52 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more