The relevant distinction here is not between *instruction* and * selection*
but rather between *hires* and *buys*.
> This focus on data and results is misleading. In the
> scientific tradition, data are used in attempts to falsify
> hypotheses. The generation of the hypotheses themselves is up for
> grabs, and can be conditioned by literally anything. Including human
> values. Read your Popper.
Wrong. Data are used to test hypotheses.
Wrong again. The focus is in fact on data, rather than innuendo. Making
an informed decision on BST on unsubstantiated suspicions is impossible.
> Data do not generate conclusions. They are used only to test
> those that have already been conjectured. So what is Bauman's
> conjecture? and how was it tested? how testable was it? Those are
> the kinds of things we need to know at this point.
It would seem we need to read his papers to answer these concerns. My
point is that we need data to draw our own conclusions. The
unsubstantiated innuendos that suggest that because he received funding
from Monsanto, his data are negated is of no help in drawing a conclusion.
On the other hand, evidence that Monsanto paid anyone off to
falsify data regarding BST may be of help in drawing a conclusion. At
this point, we have nothing but unsubstantiated innuendos.