Monday, December 10, 2018
Abusing science in the name of "science"
How to abuse science in the name of "science". Naturally enough from the Guardian.
I had been contacted by someone who asked me to analyse some simple data, and the results were clear: they revealed deaths and emergency admissions to hospital caused by a known environmental toxin.Well, what was the "toxin"? Was it a real poison in real quantities, or a "toxin" defined by lawsuits and lawyers, in meaningless trace quantities? How did you determine that the deaths and illnesses were CAUSED by the "toxin"? Did autopsies find known lethal levels of the "toxin" in dead bodies, or did you just see a cluster pattern? You never tell us, so we have NO WAY TO DETERMINE if the whole issue is real or fake.
The authorities had been warned about the toxin, but downplayed the problem and told the public there was no great cause for concern. Because of my findings the local residents managed to get a public legal inquiry and I was called to give evidence. I decided to arrive a day early and watch the inquiry from the public viewing area. I was interested in the inquiry, but I also wanted to get an idea of what it would be like to be cross-examined by lawyers.Maybe the authorities were right. The STANDARD response of authorities in a situation like this is to shut down everything and order the public to "shelter in place" forever. DEFCON 99999999. If the authorities were downplaying, maybe they understood that the threat was essentially zero and you were a faker. Again, you haven't told us what the "toxin" was, so we can't begin to assess this part.
A few days after my results went public, the authorities hired another academic from a prestigious university to dispute my findings. The lawyer representing the local residents cross-examined the academic and staff from the authorities, and in painstaking detail pieced together how they had colluded to create results that better suited the authority’s agenda.Did they collude, or did they run through the time-consuming process of REAL SCIENCE to gather and check all available and measurable evidence? When an initial judgment is based on pretty good evidence, gathering more evidence will typically reinforce the initial judgment. This isn't collusion, it's LOGIC. BY REFUSING TO GIVE ANY OF THE DATA, YOU ARE VIOLATING THE BASIC BASIC BASIC RULES OF SCIENCE. It's conceivable that you might be right, but your complete lack of information would lead any court or jury to dismiss your complaint. Put this into normal terms. "I think a contractor defrauded me. The contractor was supposed to do something but failed to do it. I'm not going to tell you the name of the contractor, and I'm not going to tell you what they were supposed to do, and I'm not going to tell you how they failed to do it." Would you vote Guilty?
Labels: Metrology
¶ 1:03 AM
