From The Editors, including Masthead; January 1997; Scientific American Magazine; by Rennie; 1 Page(s)

Alarmed by the public's continuing enthusiasm for the paranormal, the illogical and the unreasonable, many scientists and skeptics have gone on the defensive. They warn that this wave of irrationalism threatens to engulf society and, in the process, impede science by robbing it of support and brains suitably equipped for the rigors of future research. Mindful of these consequences, Gary Stix, Sasha Nemecek and Philip Yam of Scientific Americans editorial board therefore took a closer look at the ominous phenomenon that has come to be known as antiscience. Their report appears on page 96.

They quickly discovered that defining antiscience, let alone assessing its danger, is no easy task. Antiscience has become like "political correctness," an all-purpose slur that defines the position of the person using the phrase better than it does the thing being described. Are astrology columns, creationist textbooks, television programs about angels and tracts on feminist physics all antiscience? Are they all antiscientific in the same way? Does calling them antiscience do much to explain or refute them? For that reason, it seemed most sensible and informative to get past the broad heading and instead examine a few of the movements labeled antiscientific in their particulars.