My least favorite part of Scientific American is the "skeptic" column by Michael Shermer. I consider myself a hard-headed scientist. Yet I find his dismissal of anything that doesn't conform to the paradigm of present-day science to be arrogant and, in fact, not all that evidence-based. In the history of science, we repeatedly see new paradigms having developed, forcing realists to toss out old ones. But Shermer takes the view that if science doesn't know about something currently, then it can't exist. --Dan _____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele