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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (110519)	1/12/2008 8:47:21 PM
From: marcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

"...all you have to do to know the results of a study is too look at the names of the sponsors..." i agree, in regard to studies conducted or analyzed by think tanks (left, right, or middle). i find "peer reviewed" studies published in academic journals have much less bias. who was it from the bush right that recently stated numbers don't matter; suggested that data be distorted during interpretation in order to influence others? an important question is, who gains advantage when facts are reduced to opinions? i suppose the global warming dialogue is one example. i am certain that there is highly meaningful data that leads to improvement, when interpreted properly. unfortunately, i've experienced politically-directed data interpretation that misleads, horribly. sorry if this is boring. stepping off the box... cheers! --marc

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (110519)	1/13/2008 4:12:40 AM
From: GuinnessGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi Mike, Sounds like you've read Michael Crichton's, State of Fear. He devotes quit a bit of the book to that premise. Interesting read. There is also a problem with fewer federal dollars for research. Given that, these academics have to vie for private dollars. And we know what the agenda is there. craig