harry wrote on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:40:33 +0100:

"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" wrote in
message news
I have contacted two historians on science. One has found the webpage ok
and suggested a correction i have included in last

http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/r...e/history.html

Other wrote

{BLOCKQUOTE
Your project looks promising and interesting! }

but adds he wait to the complete version of the website for a final
evaluation,

{BLOCKQUOTE
I wish you a good fothcoming, I will look on your homepage in some
weeks again.
}

How different from unfair criticism by amateur Tom Roberts!

Your reaction is understandable but I think that you are not being fair
he he is not an historian of science, but there is no need to rub it
in. Such comments -- even if true --are close to name-calling, and not
useful at all.

I think i have been kindly. In my opinion, Roberts words were *very*
unfair

{BLOCKQUOTE [Tom Roberts]
That website displays the bias of its author much more strongly than
than any defensible view of the history of science. It is revisionist
history at its worst
}

Also in point 10 of Roberts' (and Siegmar Schleif) FAQ

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/
experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_S R

one can read

"Amateurs look for patterns, professionals look at error bars."

I am rather sure that Roberts uses that phrase to warn his readers about
certain incorrect literature.

I have remarked Roberts 'amateurism' on history of relativity by a
similar motive.

If Roberts is not a historian of science -of course Roberts is not- then
he would avoid to write unfair postings as that of above.


--
I apply http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt