You did it again. Wonderful! REH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Genetic Understanding (was Re: The Blank Slate) > 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] > > ________________________________________________________________________ >
