I think the proposed legislation doesn\u2019t go nearly far enough. All pseudoscience should get similar protection under law, and this makes writing the legislation that much simpler. I propose the following:<\/p>\n
No \u201cscientist\u201d shall be subjected to persecution or mockery (including, but not limited to, the placement of \u201cscare quotes\u201d around the word \u201cscientist\u201d when referring to said person) on the basis of their adoption or advocacy of ideas that are without scientific merit. Nor shall any viewpoint be discriminated against by being deprived of the label science<\/em> simply on the grounds that it is lacking in accuracy, logic, or evidence, or because of the inability of its proponents to publish the results of their research in peer reviewed journals. Neither shall failure to actually do any research be held against the viewpoint in question or its proponents.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If you care about this issue, send this draft legislation to your representative \u2013 and if they don\u2019t understand the joke, then vote for someone else in the next election.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ll conclude with two images posted by my colleague Brad Matthies on his blog The Digital Immigrant<\/a>. One illustrates the scientific method as it is and should be, the other as it would be if the aforementioned Texas legislator or others like him get their way. <\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/bradmatthies.files.wordpress.com\/2011\/03\/science.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n![](\"https:\/\/graphjam.files.wordpress.com\/2009\/12\/128823221372343926.png?w=504&h=509\")
<\/a><\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-6972688565429373192?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"