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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sea Otter who wrote (10044)	2/22/2012 3:22:48 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"It's a close analogy. Back a few decades ago the tobacco companies spent a lot of money trying to discredit scientific research. They funded institutes that tried to undermine research and tried to spread misinformation. A lot of people died as a result, believing this nonsense. It took a generation for the scientific truth to finally prevail over those vested interests." everyone knew they were bad for you, they called them coffin nails in the 1920s, cancer sticks in the 30s and 40s. Scientist are people also with families, they like money also. Plus universities put pressure on them to get grant monies. Plus some are major league Marxists and would do anything to stop capitalism. My Father in Law was like this. A rocket scientist and a marxist. I would point out how it never worked anywhere and he would reply it would work here in the US. You do know that the National Academy of Sciences is just an evil corporation taking advantage of the 99%. I'm surprise you support a corporation

To: Sea Otter who wrote (10044)	2/22/2012 6:14:10 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

"Follow the money" is an exaggerated point with most research controversies. Not that I'd say no thought should be given to it, money with an agenda can distort priorities of research, and sometimes even the research itself. But some people pushed it to the point where you just dismiss any research or argument by those with, or funded by, those with a perceived vested interest, or even further where they seem to regard showing such a vested interest as equivalent to refuting the argument being raised by their opponents (a clear case of ad-hominem). Yes its something to consider, but you have to consider it both ways. Its not reasonable to say "those on my side of the controversy are "pure and uncorreptable", while dismissing any counterargument as dishonest payed off shills in it for the money only.