Re: Scientific American Article On "Market" Economists

"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:544b08f8-1d29-4b5f-a2b6-0df9803f0ad2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Apr 8, 2:36 am, William Elliot <ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > 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 income
> > 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 slashed,
> your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded
'scientiests'
> who do research on a pay for your pet results basis.
>
> For example, the guy who did damning research about use of lead was
> broadsided by the lead companies.

My point, precisely.  It's decision by committee, but, there's no
really objective way to decide who's right and who's wrong.  So, even
when they're aren't huge business or government interests involved,
the decision comes down to petty university politics.  There is no
methodology of "interpreting" experiments.  Results of relevant
research elsewhere are regularly ignored, other possible
interpretations are ignored.  This is unacceptable.  A formal system
for integrating all meaningful, releveant research and concepts into
the intepretation of experimental results needs to be developed.  It
doesn't currently exist.  That's why scientific progress tends to be
so s****adic and unpredictable.


***
So do you know a better way of interpreting results than what they use
now, 
or are you just blowing hot air?