[ RadSafe ] Mangano's New Study

[Steven Dapra]

July 3

         I borrowed the rhetorical form from National Public Radio, and 
from much of the secular press.

         It is possible that they (anti-nukers) believe their data are 
true.  In some cases, it may be true.  In fact, all of it may be true.  The 
problem isn't so much the truth of the data but the way in which the data 
are manipulated to obtain the desired results, or the way in which 
confounding data are glossed over or ignored.  I have already thrown 
yesterday's RADSAFE traffic into the trash, however I recall someone 
explaining how Sternglass searched long and hard to find some type of 
cancer that increased near a reactor, and then blew this (true) data out of 
proportion, while simultaneously ignoring no changes in some cancers, and 
decreases in others.  (This is not a real good summary of yesterday's 
posting, however I am hoping I have managed to reproduce the general 
idea.)  Context and the larger perspective are as important as the data, if 
not more so.

         If we acknowledge that the data are true, and show the anti-nuker 
(or whoever it is) that his interpretation is erroneous or untenable or 
that his context has shortcomings, and he refuses to accept our 
explanations, then I would maintain that the other party is operating from 
the position of ideology.  Maybe it's not "left-wing" and maybe it's not 
"extremist" (I'll readily give you that, John) nevertheless, I would say 
it's ideology.

         Two or three years ago I attended a lecture on depleted uranium, 
and during the discussion I pointed out to an anti-DU partisan that her 
anti-DU "science" had no merit.  She responded by accusing me of refusing 
to accept her claims because -- she said -- I was guilty of a racial or 
ethnic prejudice against Iraqis.  I was prejudiced against Iraqis and 
therefore wanted them all to die of DU poisoning, regardless of lack of 
evidence to show that DU was poisoning anyone.  My defamer was employing 
ideology pure and simple.

         Although I have heard of the book you recommend I have not read 
it.  I'll try to read some reviews of it on Amazon.

Steven Dapra


At 06:38 AM 7/3/07 -0700, John Jacobus wrote:
>Why do you think they have a "left-wing extremist
>ideology?"  Is it possible they believe the data is
>true?  If so, then all the arguements and explanations
>you present will not change their minds.
>
>I would suggest reading "Why People Believe Weird
>Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other
>Confusions of Our Time,"
>http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1/103-7576284-3301444?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183469614&sr=8-1
>
>--- Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> > July 2
> >
> > Maybe on the intellectual level they are cavemen.
> > Perhaps they are
> > left-wing extremist ideologues who have an agenda
> > that doesn't include the
> > plain unvarnished (and unpleasant) truth.

[edit]