YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsScience


December 2, 2006
Re "Fundamentalism for adults only," Current, Nov. 26 Michael Bywater wrongly blames science for the deficiencies of those who do not understand it. He claims that science includes "articles of faith," when in fact it deals exclusively with logic and mathematically quantifiable confidence. He tries to equate religion and science, but only the latter necessarily shows its work. Bywater characterizes religion as a "valid way of thinking," though logical validity entails truth preservation, which faith does not. Religion also "delivers results," but only in the form of comfort, not knowledge.
March 13, 2001
Re "$1-Million Templeton Prize Goes to British Priest," March 9: With all due respect for the Rev. Canon Arthur Peacocke, who has devoted a substantial chunk of professional energy to higher learning, his conclusions as presented by The Times are sophomoric at best. His attempted rapprochement between religion (Christianity for Peacocke) and science amounts to little more than self-help theorizing for Christian intellectuals. Yes, biological systems are immensely complicated, and therefore there must be a God who made it all and will grant us everlasting life.
December 7, 1994
Your editorial, "Science Must Police Its Ranks" (Nov. 30), contains several factual and conceptual errors that should not pass uncorrected. First, regarding the Thereza Imanishi-Kari case, Nobelist David Baltimore did not indulge in "a questionable practice that is too common, his name was put on the paper even though he had nothing directly to do with the study." In fact, the publication in Cell in 1986 was a product of a collaboration between the laboratories of Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari, and much of the data in the paper were generated in Baltimore's laboratory, not in Imanishi-Kari's.
August 16, 1990
John A. Moore (Science, Common Sense and Our Public Fears," Commentary, Aug. 12) presents a reasonable-sounding position on the role of scientists in informing social policy decisions. He also appears to be so politically naive that he might as well be from another planet. Moore would rely on the opinions of "mainstream" scientists. What this ignores is the relationship most "mainstream" scientists have with the profit-driven corporations that employ them. The problem is compounded because our elected representatives are so very often beholden to the same corporations.
January 10, 1991
Considering the fact that Salgado feels that "it is natural for children to be curious about their world, to wonder about the sky above and the earth below," we feel it ironic that he chose to participate in a Department of Energy fellowship program that included work with a laboratory (Los Alamos) whose primary purpose is creating the means by which humanity can potentially bring about the demise of this wondrous environment. As Salgado suggests, to eat menudo in space may be an interesting experience, but the problem of feeding people here on Earth is more pressing; Salgado should reconsider the application of his interest in the sciences to this and other more pressing issues.
October 3, 2010 | By Sara Lippincott, Special to the Los Angeles Times
Brain Storm The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences Rebecca M. Jordan-Young Harvard University Press: 394 pp., $35 Are men and women really two planets apart? In "Brain Storm," Rebecca M. Jordan-Young, a Barnard College professor of women's studies, sets out to debunk the proliferating "brain-organization" studies that attempt to explain in purely biological terms (since XX and XY seem not to be enough) why males and females differ in one way or another.
Los Angeles Times Articles