Greylock wrote:



Good science is apolitical.

Facts are gathered, a theory is advanced, and if the theory is found
to explain the facts the theory is accepted until further facts
support or contradict it.

Junk science starts with a theory and then selectively accumulates
facts to support the theory. Inconvenient facts are ignored in the
pursuit of proving the theory.

No, you've omitted an important first step. Junk
science first starts with a conclusion, usually one
beloved for ideological reasons. Then a bogus theory
is formulated that - quelle surprise! - predicts that
conclusion, and the rest is as you laid out.

See any of the (pseudo) scientific crapola posted in
t.p.a. and a.a.e.v. by the irrational Irish blowjob
artist Lesley, posting recently under the pseudonym
'pearl'.


Good scientists are not necessarily apolitical, but proper adherence
to the science and the facts does not allow for the insertion of
political dogma. If you start with the theory, the dogma is built in.

Most of the junk science being promoted these days is coming from the
far left nutballs and the far right religious nutballs. Most of the
press for the junk science goes to the far left nutballs.


far . . . .

Keith

For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/