Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23216)	1/6/2004 6:44:45 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

"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.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23216)	1/6/2004 7:08:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793670

"He simply said it <consensus> was applicable to political questions.... The same is the case for objectivity and neutrality." You need to read Thomas Sowell's article a little closer. And you need to revisit both of Michael Crichton's articles too. They both made several valid points that you did not grasp IMO. Per Sowell..... ...What makes all this straining for neutrality more than just another passing silliness is that it reveals a serious confusion between neutrality and objectivity. Such verbal posturing has been at its worst in some of the most biased media, such as the BBC. During World War II, legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow never pretended to be neutral as between the Nazis and the Allies. Yet you would have trouble today finding anyone in the media with anything resembling the stature and integrity of Ed Murrow. Honesty does not require posturing. In fact, the two things are incompatible. Nor does objectivity require neutrality. Medical science is no less scientifically objective because it is completely biased in favor of people and against bacteria.... _________________________________________________________ Actually Crichton's view of politics only considered consensus part of the "business" of politics. His personal view of the "business" of politics is not a kind one at all..... ....Even to a child, the contrast was clear between the world of politics - a world of hate and danger, of irrational beliefs and fears, of mass manipulation and disgraceful blots on human history..... ....Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled..... ....Consensus is the <font size=5>business<font size=3> of politics..... ....let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of.... ....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..... ....The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?.... ...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."