NP Witt List (was something Pynchon-related at some point, maybe)

[Mark Smith]

Andrew wrote:

> And in the end this is what determines truth, sound data.
SNIP
> There is room for debate
> (ill-advised or not) in the face of any data and clearly such debate
> cannot be based on the data but on other considerations. 

You know, I'm pretty sure I'll be sorry that I opened this can of worms,
but I gotta ask what you mean here.  Do you mean "clearly such debate
must be based on something other than data, since the data is there for
all to see, if they want to, and yet different conclusions are drawn
from the same data?" 

If so, then I get it. But then data can grow and change.  I really don't
want to get into the whole creation "science" thing, nor the tobacco
thing, nor even the clean air standards thing, so much as the
overarching theme of the disingenuous use of media power to co-opt
truth.  Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth.  Good science
is in a constant state of flux. By and large science operates in good
faith, or at least that is the principle.  The fact that the principle
has been corrupted by research grants and funding considerations is
tragic, but is no reason to abandon the notion of the scientific method
altogether.  Remember Gould's definition of "fact": "In science, 'fact'
can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold *provisional* assent.'  I suppose that apples might start to
rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms." (italics mine).  In other words, a true scientist does not
have to bend over backwards to retrofit the data to his predetermined
theories.

OK, so I know this doesn't always work in principle, because "scientists
are human".  But the big problem arises when the man in the street fails
to detect the competing motives of differing scientists, and uses that
confusion as an excuse for doing nothing.  We are hamstrung by bad
science.  My dad, for instance, after years of not eating eggs because
of the cholesterol scare, was really pissed off a few years ago to
discover that the "scientists" had changed their minds on the egg
issue.  Bunch of bums!  What do they know!  He uses that mix-up to
justify eating whatever he wants now, because scientists disagree.  It
suits him fine to be able to discount their advice.

This is merely a dietary example.  It gets a lot more serious when big
business and/or religious fundamentalism is involved.  
-- 
Beechnut Review	http://www.traverse.com/beechnut
"Go bind thou up yon dangling apricocks,/Which, like unruly children,
make their sire/Stoop with oppression of their prodigal weight."