Do Monarchs need Paul Cherubini?

[Chuck Vaughn]

Bob,

> Chuck is still in a dream world. If you do not see bogey
> men you are blind and naive my friend. I think I expouse no
> "conspriacy theories. Any one who sees no concerted effort to do away
> with our wild lands and utilize our natural reesources with unbridled
> lust is either on the "payroll" or a dam gfool. we need none of these
> people trying to stifle science or the excahnge of ideas.

I neither in a dream world, blind, nor naive. I do not wish to stifle
science, exactly the opposite. There are certainly those who would like
to stifle science for all sorts of reasons. The amount of psuedo science
I see in the media drive me nuts. I am completely in favor of having the
best facts science can provide before making decisions.

But since we all have our biases, different people are going to see the
facts in different lights. For an example, let's say the science says
an endangered spiecies will go extinct if a section of the forest is logged.
As an environmentalist or conservationist one would likely say, "Okay,
no logging. We have to protect this area forever." OTOH, the logger would
likely say, "Fine about the science but I don't care. I own the property.
I need to provide for my family. I meet a demand in the market. Keep
the government out of my private property." As a result the two sides
are at each other's throats. It's not too hard to see why the logger
might want to stiffle science.

Those who use science to advance their agenda in an uncompromising manner,
no matter how right they believe it to be, go a long a way to fostering
an atmosphere of anti-science.

We could go on discussing this for quite some time but this is so OT for
this forum and becoming somewhat philosophical so I'll stop.

Chuck <aa6g at aa6g.org>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl