Keith, You underestimate professional liars and overestimate scientists engaged in basic research. Professional liars have consciences, principles and mortgages. So do scientists. I'm sure that what you say is true, that by and large scientists are engaged in discovering what-is, not trying to persuade people into believing what-is-not.
At the end of the day all the discovering what-is and persuading what-is-not gets poured into a giant sieve and is spread across the land like so much fertilizer and pesticide. It is not the scientists who determine the proportions. One of the great homeopathic tricks of the persuading trade is that more often than not a carefully controlled dose of what-is is just the ticket for persuading people into believing what-is-not. And how could it be different for the molecular biologist? Beavering contentedly under the impression they are (switch to instructional film narrator voice) "engaged in basic research", from another perspective they may simply be cranking out props to be used in a glossy brochure. Think of the lab-coated basic research scientists as the lab mice of an even more basic research scientist, the communications director. > Tom, > > > I suggest that your following comment is a case of crossed wires. (There > must be an elegant term for this in logic or linguistic philosophy, but > "crossed wires" will do here.) I'm afraid I don't equate professional liars > with scientists engaged in basic research. I don't think that molecular > biologists regard themselves as "transcendent social altruists" for one > minute. They're as selfish as anybody else and some of them are even > tempted to develop their findings commercially. But, by and large, they are > engaged in discovering what-is, not trying to persuade people into > believing what-is-not. > > Keith > > At 09:06 18/09/02 -0700, you wrote: > (TW) > <<<< > It's fun to lean back and day dream about scenarios of the future that are > feasible on the assumption of scientist-saints. Just try working as a > scientist-saint for a few years, though, and see what that does to your > income and standing in the profession. The same is true of writers, graphic > artists, musicians, architects, engineers -- most people with specialized > training and skill are employed commercially. We wouldn't think of > attributing some sort of transcedent social altruism to advertising > copywriters as a profession. Why should we do so for molecular biologists? > Or, more to the point, why should we believe advertising copywriters when, > in their stints as content providers, they attribute transcendent social > altruism to molecular biologists? > >>>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -------------- > > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________
