Re: Scientific American Article On "Market" Economists

> > > > > > Most physical scientists who are only getting paid by a
universi=
ty
> > > > > > have no conflicts of interest.
> > > > > > They can say what they think is true and it won't change their
i=
ncome
> > > > > > one way or another.
> > > > > Do wrong research, that is not get the 'right' results can get
you=
r tenure
> > > > > questioned, you're university's funding threathen, your funding
sl=
ashed,
> > > > > your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded
'scien=
tiests'
> > > > > who do research on a pay for your pet results basis.
>
> > > > If critics aren't addressing the "errors" in the research then a
sme=
ar
> > > > 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
wa=
s
> > > > > 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm afraid we must disagree on this point, Bret. =C2=A0Professional
> scientists are amongst the most useless members of society. =C2=A0

That's a fun-comical position to take.

> They do
> nothing, openly, and are proud of doing nothing.

Maybe _you_ think they are doing nothing.  After all, if all they do
is push paper around on their desk then obviously they are useless to
society.

You must also believe teachers are useless to society.

> Sixty years, and one
> hundred billion dollars, no progress whatsoever on nuclear fusion
> research. =C2=A0

We spend 100 billion on oil every few months.  Clearly we haven't been
giving them enough money.

Moreover, the physicists claim that's an engineering problem, not a
science problem.

> And they still want more money. =C2=A0With no clear plan or
> prospects for progress. =C2=A0

Hey, they got fission down pat.

> Professional scientists are professional
> liars. =C2=A0That is their training, that is their activity.

A few working for industry are liars.

> The Wright Brothers weren't professional scientists. =C2=A0Thomas Edison
> was a businessman. =C2=A0Tesla was a visionary

Tesla was a formally trained scientist.

> who worked in the private
> sector. =C2=A0Isaac Newton only got a job in a University because Oliver
> Cromwell had had the wisdom to kill all of the research fellows at
> Cambridge during his tenure as "Protector". =C2=A0And, a good job, too!

You've never been exposed to science or scientists.


Bret Cahill