I have to agree with Derb’s point. But I would add that we should not merely look to supernatural or faith-based theories as exceeding the boundaries of open-mindedness. Political correctness can be every bit as much a superstition as faith in the supernatural (note I am not categorically rejecting the existence of the supernatural). When that woman got the vapors over Larry Summers comments, she was only a little less superstitious than someone who thinks a witch put a spell on Derb’s computer. The history of science is just as full of stories of people rejecting ideas because they contravene the conventions of man as it is full of stories of people rejecting ideas because they seem to violate the tenets of faith. Just look at Bjorn Lomburg, Charles Murray, Julian Simon and, in a different way, Alan Sokal.

I have no problem with scientists barring certain subjects, scientists or theories from their journals and symposia. But the test shouldn’t be whether the idea is taboo but whether the arguments presented marshall evidence in a rigorous, scientific nature. If Nature wants to run an article on hexes and spells, that’s fine with me. But they better provide their data and subject themselves to peer review.