I think, because they found that 'pseudo science' does not work as well as science - why to stick with extremely unreliable tool then?

But of course, many tried hard to make 'pseudo' work - do you think, Nobel prize, bigger-than-Einstein-fame, fatty grants and donations, headlines (almost everywhere), as well as $billions in shares of new discovery-based industry to supplement huge paycheck is not enough to motivate such investigations?

I think, many are working hard to detect anything at all - but not much happens. As a side effect, sometimes new SCIENTIFIC discoveries are made.

• I'll play Devil's advocate now - stormcrow - February 11, 2001 - 02:47 UTC