>I know several university professors, and they all tell a similar
>story. Grants are awarded based on a) reputation of the applicant, b)
>relevance/significance of the proposal and c) availability of govt./
>private funding.
>Also, you should realize that when you are the one proposing that
>things are not as they are supposed to be, the burden of proof rests ..
>on you.
I think you made his point, Ed. Who among the self appointed elites will ever
recognize a good reputation for someone questioning academic orthodoxy and
relevance is determined by one's frame of reference. Hence someone coming
along questioning the validity of current study must be silenced to the proof
they are seeking to find is never financed or recognized.
You may be critical of Christians for faith, yet many of the environmentalist
religion unquestioningly accepts any drivel that comes from academic towers
even when drivel A conflicts with drivel B. The point is, question the
scientist... they have been wrong before! How long ago were they worried about
a nuclear freeze... and how long ago did they believe the earth was flat... and
the sun revolved around the earth? How long ago did science tell us saccarin
was bad for us... and had it banned. Now we know it is not bad for us and I
use it every chance I get as a reinforcement of the falibility of science!
(It's the pink stuff in the fake sugar packets).
--
Larry Miller
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/mixed
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
message/rfc822
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
