"He simply said it <consensus> was applicable to political questions"
He did? Where? I must have missed it.
He said this about speculation.....
...But over the years the punditic thrust has shifted away
from discussing what has happened, to discussing what may
happen. And here the pundits have no benefit of expertise
at all. Worse, they may, like the Sunday politicians,
attempt to advance one or another agenda by predicting its
imminent arrival or demise. This is politicking, not
predicting....
Regarding consensus science he said.....
.......once you start arranging the truth in a press
conference, then anything is possible. In one context,
maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war.
But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another,
you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if
you subvert science to political ends.....
...Philip Handler... said that "Scientists best serve
public policy by living within the ethics of science, not
those of politics. If the scientific community will not
unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the
difference-- science and the nation will suffer."
Personally, I don't worry about the nation. But I do worry
about science. |
