"It's an era where it appears that science isn't enough."

Soz, in the same speech warning of the military-industrial revolution, Dwight Eisenhower warned of universities accepting funding from the government.

Yes, while it is frightening to see so many people rejecting scientific evidence, it is still, sadly, understandable. Look at all the "studies" that have been misguided or blatantly influenced by major pharmaceutical companies and other corporations over the years. How many people really trust scientific studies anymore? I no longer take them seriously until several years have given them credence.

I think greed can be credited for this lack of respect for "scientific" evidence. How many scientists have sold out to major corporations? How can the ordinary citizen know who is honest and who is promoting a product for profit?

This is the sad result.

Oh, a rare Diane sighting! Hi there, nice to see you!


Two suggestions: 1) Because, to steal a line from Frank Apisa, admitting that you don't know something (like, what causes authism, are there WMDs in Iraq, do frankenfoods kill, should America ratify Kyoto) is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. Few people have that strength, especially when it comes to problems they have a big stake in and little control over. It feels much better to hang on to some explanation, true or false, and act on it. Once you're at this point, you have a sunk investment in the theory, and don't want to be disturbed with the facts.

2) Being super-concerned about something always proves, to yourself and to others, that you are a responsible person who cares. It doesn't make much of a difference if the concern is founded in reality or in fantasy. What makes all the difference is your concern itself. The most extreme example I ever saw of this is the International Herald Tribune's reporting on Jews in Germany over the 80s. The International Herald Tribune, then a European joint-venture of the New York Times and the Washington Post, generally reported news throughout the world in the same way as its parent newspapers: no nonsense, double-fact-checked, super-informative, rational. The only exceptions were developments in Palestine, and about two or three horror stories a year about how a Jew got harrassed by proto-Nazis in German government offices.

Every time this happened, concerned German publications like Spiegel or Zeit researched the story, and every time, it turned out to be made up at random by the IHT's source, or so exaggerated it might as well have been. My only explanation for this strange anomaly is that since Jews make up the vast majority of the staff at these two newspapers, their internal group dynamics turned concern about Nazis into a shibboleth of responsibility: So strong was the shibboleth that it turned out overriding even the famous fact-checking machines at the Washington Post and the New York Times. And again, once you have put the reputation of your newspaper behind it, you don't really want to be informed that you have fallen for a ruse, and that you were not responsible as you thought, but just gullible. (And don't get me started on the Op-Eds to go with those stories. Anyone remember Arthur Rosenthal?)

Huge debate about this in Salon.com as we speak!


Robert Kennedy Jr did an article about it - charging the CDC with pretty much hiding facts.

There was then a long critique of the article - and a counter-answer from RJK.

I was fascinated re the actual science of it - ie what were statistically significant correlations etc, and nearly posted a thread about it.

But yes - the net, I think, facilitates the abilities of folk to promulgate weight-of-numbers-make-it-look-correct-fallacies in a new and bigger way. (Not that I know if thimerosol is a fallacy - looks a lot like it may be.) It can act like a huge gossip network and be a bit witch crazy.