Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:27:38 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> I (Peter Borst) find it ironic that one of the most common responses by
> laypersons to scientific works is to question the methodology. As laypersons,
> we have no choice but to rely on experts.
That is a statement of opinion, and subject to debate, particularly in light of
recent reports of the increasing numbers of unverifiable studies, conflicts of
interest, and retracted papers and suppressed results already diuscussed here.
lay·per·son/ˈlāˌpərsən/
Noun:
A nonordained member of a church.
A person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject.
I don't think you or I fit either definition, unless, of course you are a member
of a church and also unordained.
> WE cannot take these measurements, so we must accept that they are done
correctly.
Golly. We have to assume that nobody outside of academia or the chemical
companies can think of an angle that nobody has chosen to notice before?
Include me out of that particular "WE". I'm looking, and I am seeing things
that it seems you choose to ignore.
FWIW, it is not necessary to sing opera to be an opera critic.
>The best way to assure this is to compare the various reports and if they
> consistently agree, then we can begin to accept that there may be a
consensus.
Consensus is a poor substitute for incisve thinking. Looking at historical
consensus (plural) -- all of them -- I would venture that the vast majority
of consensus have proven to be riduculous -- or just plain wrong -- in hindsight.
> Either that, or a conspiracy to cook the data to support the industry's wish
> to cover up the facts.
Those are transparently false alternatives. We have been over the many
ways that groupthink and assumptions and politics and group loyalty lead
to overlooking inconvenient facts.
The long time it took to recognise that varroa destructor was not jacobsoni
is a good example. A child presented with a frontal picture of both would know
they are not the same.
Now, I ask, would such a child be considered a "layperson"?
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
|
|