******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************
On 2017-12-06 14:30, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
On 12/5/17 12:52 PM, DW via Marxism wrote:
This paper (from the link posted by Louis P.) has "junk science /
quack
medicine" stamped in red all over it, for a number of reasons.
This is ridiculous. The study, which was conducted under the auspices
of Columbia University and not Gary Null, simply states:
"The data do not represent conclusive proof
Exactly. In order to be published in a scientific journal it couldn't
state conclusions that are unsupported by the data. But in a popular
science article there are no rules on what can be published, so if one
is publishing in order to advance an agenda then any sort of innuendo
may be employed -- and does not amount to lying! -- such as simply
questioning "Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame...?" That's like
me simply questioning "Is Louis Proyect actually a space alien? Would
that not explain X, Y and Z about him?"
It was also clear to me almost as soon as I started reading the article
that it qualified as "junk science", or perhaps "junk journalism" based
on an otherwise properly published paper whose data couldn't support any
firm conclusions, but when exported to the popular press can, for
instance, include testimonials from individual cancer patients as if
their individual perceptions had any weight. But even as a properly
published scientific paper, I'd already be more suspicious of a paper
whose authors are working for an advocacy group; it would be as if I
were investigating the dangers of smoking and began by reading papers
published by (yes, actual) scientists working for the tobacco industry.
I understand that David and Marty Goodman are pro-nuclear
Right, and so I would also not base my knowledge just on what they
assert. That is the entire reason that the scientific method was
developed: to be able to make actual conclusions (and attach levels of
statistical confidence to them) and separate those from beliefs or
careless generalizations even when the "evidence seems compelling." But
look (and I'm pretty sure David will agree), it has been pretty well
established that there has been radiological health damage from nuclear
weapon testing, uranium mining and processing, nuclear reactor
accidents, and nuclear waste disposal. What political/policy conclusions
you want to reach about nuclear power (etc.) is a very separate pursuit
from these scientific studies and neither should be held hostage to the
other.
My main concern in these regards is that leftists, especially Marxists
who proudly (and justly!) assert that our understandings are
scientifically supported, do not make fools of themselves when it comes
to the hard sciences. If you're not really sure about a scientific fact,
then please just say so and don't try to conclude that scientific claims
which happen to favor your political agenda are valid for that reason.
Because if you do, then in the end what you claim to be a "Marxist"
position will be disproved by what is properly concluded using the
scientific method, and all claims we make within the social sciences
will appear no more trustworthy than our careless claims in the hard
sciences.
- Jeff
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at:
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
