The tedious hypothesis and the reason for it. . .

From: rmiller <rmiller.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:20:01 -0500

All,
My tedious complaint about scientists prejudging issues prior to analysis
("the facts don't warrant. . .etc") extends beyond the superficially weird
(Heinlein's story) to the comparatively normal. While I'm not suggesting
anyone who does this routinely is anything other than merely disinterested
in the subject (a perfectly good reason to avoid time-consuming research),
the inescapable fact is that this sort of technique has long been used as a
means of avoiding good scientific work.

Example #1. Here is an excerpt from correspondence by Dr. Paul Thomkins,
director of the FRC in his letter to the Atomic Energy Commission dated
September 25, 1952: "The basic approach to the report would be to start
with a simple, straightforward statement of conclusions. We would then
identify the major questions that could be expected to be asked in
connection with these conclusions. It would then be a straightforward
matter to select the key scientific consultants whose opinions should be
sought in order to substantiate the validity of those conclusions or
recommended appropriate modifications."

Example #2: Dr. Dade W. Moeller, in his 1971 speech as he accepted the
presidency of the Health Physics Society admonished the members: "Let's all
put our mouth where our money is."

Source: Overhead projector slide by Dr. Karl Morgan, speaking at a
conference on radiation at the University of Utah circa early 1980s. Title:
"Fundamental Reasons Why Standards-Setting Bodies and Health Physics Do Not
Serve Persons with Radiation Injury."

Prejudging difficult evidence is a grand tradition that is not without it's
occasional monetary perks. . .especially in governmental affairs.

RM
Received on Tue Jun 07 2005 - 16:24:13 PDT