That would be a nonsystematic random sample, Dale. Certainly not
admissible under the standards of experimental or even
quasi-experimental rigor.
:^D
But even taking you at your word, what you're telling us is that 11
of the 250 ACSH board members, or 4 percent, have published
extensively in peer-reviewed journals and appear to be productive
scientists. I'm not sure what conclusions you're drawing from this.
Nor how that relates to the observation made about the relationship
between "objective" science, the communication of findings, and the
physics of the funding flow.
> > But in almost every instance, it takes little effort to discover
> > which funder has a vested interest in supporting ACSH's message.
>
>That doesn't mean their findings are wrong.
Right and wrong aren't the point. The formulation and shaping of
hypotheses, of testing mechanisms, of interpretation, of
presentation, and of review is what I saw being questioned. Not
abstract categories of ultimate right and wrong.
Besides, everyone knows that scientists can't be wrong.
> > Re-arrange the letters, just as ASCH has re-arranged findings
> > in published studies, and you find ''CASH'' funded by vested
> > interests.
>
>What part of the report do you disagree with?
I'm not intending to answer for Bunny in observing that the part of
the report I disagree with *is* the source(s) of funding.
Here's a modest proposal:
Turn these questions/issues over--at the same level of funding--to a
public interest research program designed and overseen by citizens.
Let citizens be part of the research teams, equal and respected
members, and let them also generate not only the hypotheses but the
experimental methods and designs to test them. Let citizens decide
how the money will be spent, and what the researchers will earn. Let
them work with researchers on the narrow-scope technical stuff that
researchers know best--allow researchers the role of technical
consultants.
But let citizens contribute the parts that they know best--the
whole-systems perspectives.
Then let's see what findings emerge.
Just for fun, of course. Such a thing couldn't possibly happen in the
real world. Unless you went to someplace like Wisconsin.
:^>
Well, minus the funding levels and insulation from critique to which
many corporate and university scientists are accustomed.
peace
misha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michele Gale-Sinex
Communications manager
Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison
http://www.wisc.edu
UW voice mail: 608-262-8018
Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH)
Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I prefer a rude vigor to a polished banality. --Utah Philips
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail