Re: [Phys-l] Check your source!

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

John, I hear that it is now known that Ladybird Johnson was on the  
grassy knoll in Dallas. I'm too far away to do the research myself,  
but you are closer. Check it out?

Good grief! All the research you need to do on this matter is to  
click on <http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/ 
pub_detail.asp>.

The escalation of speculation on this matter is astonishing.  
Conspiracy theorists (you are evidently one of them) have made this  
single letter into a campaign by Exxon to smear scientists by funding  
targeted research and reserving prior approval of publications. You  
go a bit farther here than even the Washington Post.

I am not shocked, I am saddened by such activity. Religious zeal has  
replaced honest search for truth. As in religion, the Truths are  
given; one must only construct the connections necessary to support  
the Truths. It has happened before, and the disease is widespread.  
Some scientists have even lost their lives to zealots; Galileo only  
lost his freedom to publish.

It is unfair of me to single out one person for my opprobrium; John  
is not alone here. I don't apologize, however.

And it is sad.

Leigh

On 13 Feb 2007, John M Clement wrote:

> While the content of the letter is quite general, I think the  
> intent is quite obvious.  The person in question declined to  
> publish an article because they felt any reasonable response they  
> gave might be misused.  So apparently the person to whom the letter  
> was addressed also perceived the hidden agenda behind the offer.  I  
> would doubt that the industry would write a blatent call for  
> refutation, as that would immediately mark such papers as  
> propaganda, and lower their effectiveness.
>
> As to their credentials, I did say I have no knowledge because they  
> did not have a web site, and I could find no further information on  
> the A&M website.  So apparently the research associate in question  
> has not generated many on campus articles.  Perhaps some else can  
> do the research and try to find out why that particular person was  
> singled out for the offer, while the faculty member who put the  
> letter on the web was not.
>
> I still wonder if someone wrote an article which completely  
> disagreed with the hidden agenda, would it actually be published  
> and earn the $10k?  Maybe we will eventually find out.
>
> So why not question credentials?  I have seen too many panels where  
> the credentials of the participants did not line up with the panel  
> subject.  I have no fear of the person's giving a viewpoint that  
> does not agree with orthodoxy, because he has already disavowed  
> doing so.
>
> Incidentally science really does work by consensus, so the current  
> scientific "truth" is what the orthodoxy proclaims to be true.
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
> > This is it? You can't argue with the content of the letter,  
> > because as
> > Rick has pointed out, it is benign, so you then go to innuendo?
> > Shameful!
> > The person addressed has not even presented a critique, but you're  
> > going
> > to give a pre-emptive strike on his credentials and integrity just on
> > the chance that he MIGHT give a viewpoint that doesn't mesh with the
> > orthodoxy in vogue.