Replies

We need to return to the times when a man's reputation was the most important thing he had.

Okay, and how do you go about it? Crichton's article had a reasonably specific, implementable plan. There were two keys to his idea. One was to institute 'blinds' in the data collection and analysis systems. The other was to have a body that had a reasonable chance to be considered objective review the various findings. Both are probably good ideas, but your basic point is valid - neither guarantees success.

What's the real solution? The first step to that is to determine what the real problem is, and that problem is socialist control of academia. People with no grounding in ethics or understanding of good science are gaining degrees. It's no secret that the best and the brightest don't go into teaching or journalism. However, lately they haven't been going into science/technology, either. As long as socialists control the universities, no 'peer review' or 'independent review' system will work.

In a larger sense, many of the hypotheses which may reveal something about the universe are inherently untestable. How do you directly measure temperatures from 10,000 years ago - or 100 years from now? (By the way, the models are testable - and not one of the 'global warming' models, if applied to the conditions of 1900, comes at all close to predicting the conditions of 2000.) However, the need to use proxies is used as a smokescreen. The absence of absolute certainty (or at least, testable hypotheses verifed by test) means that there is no way to disprove many of these hypotheses, either. And there is indeed a lot of money to be made by scare tactics on science. There is now a vicious circle, where journalists with inadequate training gain money and influence by 'crisis' reporting (and also gain influence when power is concentrated in accordance with socialist principles), and so-called scientists gain money and influence by 'crisis identification'. Until we break that cycle - and Crichton's proposal at least attempts to do so - we're not going to return to a situation where scientists gain influence by legitimate science.

We need to return to the times when a man's reputation was the most important thing he had. Okay, and how do you go about it?

It's easy:

1) Elect a president like Ronald Reagan, only more conservative.

2) Appoint federal judges and supreme court justices who are conservative enough to restore the right of free association.

3) Impeach, try for treason and hang all liberal judges.

4) Remove all federal aid to education.

5) Establish the principle that a man's constitutional rights are not voided if he engages in interstate commerce or takes money from the government.

How's that for a plan?