Re: Objectivity

[Ted de Castro <tdc@XRAYTED.COM>]

Les Crable wrote:

> 

> Jim Muckerheide,

> 

> If your postings are to be perceived with at least a hint of objectivity,

> try posting abstracts on both sides of the issue such as these.  I see

> Tomasek's study did not match cases to controls by smoking status either.

> It looks like they dependent on multivariate analysis like Field.





Excuse me??  For Jim or any other person here - including Norm!  That

person has a point of view and can be expected to express and defend

that point of view.  I see no reason what so ever nor benefit to a

person having to present evidence supporting both (all) sides of the

controversy - in order to prove objectivity!



If someone has a disagreeing opinion - let THEM express it, and allow

that argument to be rebutted.



I see no sense or value in a person arguing against himself!



I would just like to see technical and scientific arguments - not

political ones or the ludicrous "perception" argument.



The only case where I would expect balanced presentation is on a work

that purports to be a news article or documentary of similar educational

piece.  This is a discussion forum and view points can be expected to be

expressed.

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/