Re: Scientific American Article On "Market" Economists

> > > > Most physical scientists who are only getting paid by a university
> > > > have no conflicts of interest.
> > > > They can say what they think is true and it won't change their
incom=
e
> > > > one way or another.
> > > Do wrong research, that is not get the 'right' results can get your
te=
nure
> > > questioned, you're university's funding threathen, your funding
slashe=
d,
> > > your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded
'scienties=
ts'
> > > who do research on a pay for your pet results basis.
>
> > If critics aren't addressing the "errors" in the research then a smear
> > campaign will work at only a tiny minority of universities.
>
> > The truth -- generally conflicts of interest -- will always out.
>
> > Getting "smeared" for good research is just not a valid concern for
> > real scientists are real universities.
>
> > > For example, the guy who did damning research about use of lead was
> > > broadsided by the lead companies.
>
> > How did you find out about this injustice if the researcher was
> > silent?

> Bret, where are you getting this notion that academic research is so
> perfect? =EF=BF=BD

No one claimed it was so perfect.

It just _seems_ like it's infinitely superior to everything else going
on on the planet.

> Most professional researchers do absolutely nothing but play
> mind games for their entire careers,

All aren't Nobel Laureates but they do a whole lot more useful work
than any other group.

> and most people outside of
> professional academia say this openly. =EF=BF=BD

A small minority of mostly ignorant folk say that, not most.

> Some people inside academia
> say it openly, too!

The most acrimonious attacks on academia are from academia but that
doesn't mean the ignorant are correct.


Bret Cahill