I agree with some of what you said, but in some cases, the scientific choice for public policy is not neccesarily the best choice, wouldn't you agree? I find it's the same argument with economics, for example. In most cases, the evidence shows that economics-based decision making that would work out the best for the public involved in the long run is the best policy choice. The problem is that the public sometimes has different priorities and desires. That's what a democracy is about - freedom to choose whether right or wrong.
The problem with western democracies right now is the buying of public servants by special interests - not just "big tabacco" or "big oil" but by other groups like the AARP, ALCU, Sierra Club, and many others. They all take advantage of the system of patronage and lobbying. Lobbying doesn't mean "reasonably presenting your case in an open forum" any more. It means buying the congressperson lunch or taking them on a cruise or buying massive blocks of expensive TV ad time to directly divert public attention or a combination thereof. In other words, Philip Morris isn't cheating, they're using the very system created and maintained by voters and which is used by plenty of other organizations to accomplish their goals.
Hmmm...I didn't realize science was about "winning". But you seem to have missed my point entirely. Scientific claims should stand alone for peer review. Who makes those claims, how they act in a public area, or what they ate for breakfast (even if it was babies) are all irrelevant when it comes down to it.
This is another logical fault of the environmental movement. *Who* makes claims or statements is not important. What *is* important is the claim or statement itself and whether it is demostrably true or not.
This would be akin to automatically assuming that because a scientist is published in a peer-reviewed journal, whatever he or she is hypothesizing must have merit and/or be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, thanks for making your "point" clear. Your powers of observation and logical argument are god-like...
Obscured? Interesting considering the last 8 words of your last sentence...
I agree with some of what you said, but in some cases, the scientific choice for public policy is not neccesarily the best choice, wouldn't you agree? I find it's the same argument with economics, for example. In most cases, the evidence shows that economics-based decision making that would work out the best for the public involved in the long run is the best policy choice. The problem is that the public sometimes has different priorities and desires. That's what a democracy is about - freedom to choose whether right or wrong. The problem with western democracies right now is the buying of public servants by special interests - not just "big tabacco" or "big oil" but by other groups like the AARP, ALCU, Sierra Club, and many others. They all take advantage of the system of patronage and lobbying. Lobbying doesn't mean "reasonably presenting your case in an open forum" any more. It means buying the congressperson lunch or taking them on a cruise or buying massive blocks of expensive TV ad time to directly divert public attention or a combination thereof. In other words, Philip Morris isn't cheating, they're using the very system created and maintained by voters and which is used by plenty of other organizations to accomplish their goals.
Hmmm...I didn't realize science was about "winning". But you seem to have missed my point entirely. Scientific claims should stand alone for peer review. Who makes those claims, how they act in a public area, or what they ate for breakfast (even if it was babies) are all irrelevant when it comes down to it.
Yeah, I'm a dick for providing a free place for people to talk about something (iTV) they're interested in. What was I thinking?
The ink on the Apple announcement isn't even dry and there's already a forum started for iTV too...check it out: http://myitv.org/
This is another logical fault of the environmental movement. *Who* makes claims or statements is not important. What *is* important is the claim or statement itself and whether it is demostrably true or not. This would be akin to automatically assuming that because a scientist is published in a peer-reviewed journal, whatever he or she is hypothesizing must have merit and/or be true.
http://myfuturesinfo.com/