Having resumed the 'electronification' of cowry-related articles, I have
encountered
an instance of advice which, if followed, gives the desired result but
is justified
with totally incorrect science. Since the 'advice' was given by an
"expert" and
published (then re-published half a year later) without the science
being questioned
and/or corrected, many readers will give it credence for that reason
alone. Having checked
the issues for the following year; I found no correction printed.
 
The item I am discussing can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/6061/NSN206CY.HTM#A1
My own response is added to this article but the question I have for any
who read 'expert'
advise is, "How is the authority of an 'expert' to be re-evaluated when
science errors, such
as these, are uncovered?"
 
I see it as fairly important and have tried to set the 'science' itself
straight. I may
not have done it very tactfully in spite of my credentials from the
'Road-Warrior Academy
of Diplomacy and Hostage Negotiation.'
 
Do any workers amongst us have similar experiences that could give a
clearer sense of how
things like this can be addressed? If you don't wish to comment to the
listserver, I'd be
interested in hearing from you directly.
 
Aloha,
 
makuabob (a.k.a. Bob Dayle)