bigmacbear (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bigmacbear) wrote2005-06-03 10:18 pm
bigmacbear) wrote2005-06-03 10:18 pm
Entry tags:
Scientific orthodoxy and the Nanny State
CDC chief tries to deflate obesity debate
Here's a thought: Medical science, especially as reported to the general public, is so compromised today by conflicting results, irreproducible studies, and funding sources that in and of themselves skew the results, that most people I know discount the whole lot of 'em, and remark about how scientists and the government are just out to scare everyone to death.
What strikes me about the cited article, however, is the manner in which pressure is brought to bear on a government lab to discount its study based on what can only be called scientific orthodoxy (a phrase which, in my understanding of the scientific method, is clearly a contradiction in terms). Scientists aren't supposed to be the keepers of dogma, that's the church's job.
The reason for this sort of enforcement of scientific orthodoxy appears to be to prop up the idea of the Nanny State, the prohibition of anything remotely pleasureable on the grounds that it will kill you (or worse yet, somebody else). I've been reading some of the (perfectly justifiable IMHO) rantings of a fellow New Yawker on the topic and here is what he has to say about this particular area.
Sometimes people just need to be left to their own best judgements -- in other words, to be treated as adults.
Here's a thought: Medical science, especially as reported to the general public, is so compromised today by conflicting results, irreproducible studies, and funding sources that in and of themselves skew the results, that most people I know discount the whole lot of 'em, and remark about how scientists and the government are just out to scare everyone to death.
What strikes me about the cited article, however, is the manner in which pressure is brought to bear on a government lab to discount its study based on what can only be called scientific orthodoxy (a phrase which, in my understanding of the scientific method, is clearly a contradiction in terms). Scientists aren't supposed to be the keepers of dogma, that's the church's job.
The reason for this sort of enforcement of scientific orthodoxy appears to be to prop up the idea of the Nanny State, the prohibition of anything remotely pleasureable on the grounds that it will kill you (or worse yet, somebody else). I've been reading some of the (perfectly justifiable IMHO) rantings of a fellow New Yawker on the topic and here is what he has to say about this particular area.
Sometimes people just need to be left to their own best judgements -- in other words, to be treated as adults.