Ian Tattum wrote: Can I ask a really stupid question first? Being a technophobe I had not even been aware of Google Scholar before today so am a bit confused about the criteria for the inclusion of ' information' there. I just searched the topic UFO and found a mixture of the serious and the cranky, so I was wondering if you think all fringe stuff should be removed or is creationist matter a special case because of the vehemence of those wishing to push that particular brand of pseudo-science, making it particularly dangerous?

Shrunk wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote: Can I ask a really stupid question first? Being a technophobe I had not even been aware of Google Scholar before today so am a bit confused about the criteria for the inclusion of ' information' there. I just searched the topic UFO and found a mixture of the serious and the cranky, so I was wondering if you think all fringe stuff should be removed or is creationist matter a special case because of the vehemence of those wishing to push that particular brand of pseudo-science, making it particularly dangerous?

Personally,I would like all the crank sites to be filtered out. But creationist sites are deserving of particular scrutiny, for the reasons you allude to. I also wonder if, from a practical angle, it's easier to exclude particular sites, rather changing the entire process by which sites are selected.

willhud9 wrote:#2137! Signed, commented and liked on Facebook!

The work of the aforementioned organisations, which is based more or less on the egregious distortion and misrepresentation of valid science in service of mythology, driven by the slated objective of restoring humanity to a 12th century theocracy and the fact that the "scholarly" articles they produce are nothing but misinformative and misrepresentative work that are beneath the standards of intellectually honest discourse only lend credence to the demand for Google Scholar to deny them publicity.