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
inc=
ome
> > > > > one way or another.
> > > > Do wrong research, that is not get the 'right' results can get
your =
tenure
> > > > questioned, you're university's funding threathen, your funding
slas=
hed,
> > > > your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded
'scienti=
ests'
> > > > 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=BDMost professional researchers do absolutely nothing
bu=
t play
> > mind games for their entire careers,

> Are you talking about hard scientists or academics in general?

He's talking about physicists, chemists and biologists.

He's never taken any university level science courses so he doesn't
understand it, and, therefore he thinks it's a scam like everything
else in U. S. society.

I don't deny that there might be some scammers in, say, string theory,
but broad brush cynicism generates some pretty comical errors.


Bret Cahill