Teaching an obviously outdated (erroneous) theory draws strong interest from the student since they *know* it’s wrong. And it seems to be a nice lesson in model-building.

Hi David,

The problem is that companies (and now religious groups) have learned how to purchase the outcome of a “research” program. It is (most people agree) OK to purchasing advertising, but in this case the companies (and “researchers”) are being unethical by claiming that a form of advertising is actually research. It’s a form of deception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception

Note that the Bill of Rights permits unethical actions, and it is not “advocating censorship” to criticize speech or suggest someone should stop saying something because it is deceptive.

Referring to the quotation in your piece:

“Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make “philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector.” That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn’t like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.”

What’s wrong with a private company funding research that advocates for that private company? Isn’t it a form of censorship to demand that; the private company should spend it’s money in a different way? If the researcher accepts the money from the private company to develop invalid research is it not the researcher’s fault and not the company’s? I would say; yes it is the researcher’s fault. For all you know, the company believes that the researcher they have hired is ethical and the research valid. Besides, in the case of “advocating (or not advocating) a strong private sector”, the research is more often than not an opinion at best.
If the research is highly scientific (what I mean by “highly scientific is in effect very close to a “yes or no” answer (which research is not, usually, in advocating or not advocating for a private sector)) well then it is clearly the fault of the researcher, should that research be incorrect. Indeed in acting to defend itself and protect it’s interests, the company is surely doing a great social good. It is funding hard research that, assuming the researcher is ethical, will contribute greatly to general knowledge. How is this a “distortion”? You might answer “because the scientist is unethical and the company is funding an unethhical scientist”. Well, if the scientist is unethcial he won’t be a scientist for long, if his peers have anything to do with it! He will be proved unethical by his peers and the company can no longer associate itself with him. Am I being naive here? Do I have too much faith in scientists’ ability to police themselves? You might say here “well, ID advocates have gotten scientists to vouch for them”. My answer is: I don’t think these “scientists” are held in very high regard. The case against them is so strong that only faith can save them!”

I therefore don’t understand the supposed analogy here. Namely, the public is presented with obviously valid, hard scientific research and obviously invalid, faith-based mysticism concerning ID. And in the former case (the private sector Krugman quotation) we have the opinion of one side or the other to the validity of the private sector, which is based on a wide number of variables and really is a matter of your political/philosophical persuasion or worldview or “opinion”.

What you are advocating, therefore, isthe equating of censorship with the application of reason. That (unless clarified) is a contradiction.

Cheers,

David

I think you just blew my mind.

I was also opposed to ID and DI until I found this website:

http://www.venganza.org

I mean the chart explains even global warming …
It convinced me and maybe it will convince you as well !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

The DI is definitely not a scientific group and scientists who claim otherwise are either lying or duped; they are careful not to use words like “Genesis” and “Christ” in the current debates, but forcing a particular form of Christianity into the public schools is definitely part of their goal.

I have to wash my hands now.