Re: The "right" answer

[maury <maury@webtexas.com>]

Jerry's skepticism is fully warranted. I wish to add, however,

that our problems in science today go much deeper and are not

readily susceptible to foreseeable solutions.



Looking back, the late '40s and 1950s were almost a golden age

in science, politics, and in many fields of human endeavor. Then in

the '60s, things began a change which was completed by the end

of that decade. What on earth happened?



The end of WWII was a tremendous relief and occasioned great

optimism. The GI Bill enabled a fabulous growth in the education of

huge numbers of people. The nation had seen vivid evidence of the

problem-solving capabilities of science and engineering. Tolerance

of differing people and ideas reached high levels that often result

from greater education and extensive intermixtures or peoples,

customs, and ideas. DoD was freely funding (stimulating) breathtaking

scientific research efforts.



Idealism ran high in those years. It overcame the tawdry episode

of McCarthyism. Idealism responded to the invasion of South Korea and

severely dulled the spread of communism. The US even attempted to share

nuclear technology with our political opponents! Alas, much of this

idealism began to wane in the 1960's and by the '70s, it died.



By the '70s, the nation was mired in Viet Nam and an idealist

response to requests for help by South Viet Nam was dashed when a

prominent, trusted news commentator declared that the Tet Offensive

showed clearly that militant communism could not be stopped by the US.

The US Army protested that Tet was a US success and that it was a

desperate clutch for survival by the Viet Cong. Years later. the papers

of Gen. Giap showed that the Army assessment had been correct.  But by

then, that war was lost and the US was too busy spitting on Vietnam vets

and calling them

baby killers to care anymore.



By the '70s, the money was scarce, our political "giants" were

diminished, education suffered, tolerance for differing people and

ideas was reduced. The very integrity of the practice of science

suffered. And the US was well on its way to: Today.



What on earth has happened?  Self confidence suffers; fear engenders

tunnel vision; sensitivities are more easily bruised;

hurt feelings lead to anger. The daily business of society relies

increasingly on acting "by the book" -- authority is compromised

and individual responsibility is vanishing. The beauty, adventure, and

thrills of science have not disappeared, but they are no longer so

bright as in times past. Scientific evidence can be falsified and,

failing that, scientific judgements are purchased with massive publicity

and fear. One of my favorite email taglines is PP=PPP; Precautionary

Principle equals Piss-Poor Policy.



Politics has often degenerated to the name with a small "p".

Liberalism died with the VN War when the liberals bifurcated into

hawks and doves. They were not even able to debate policy because they

could not agree at all on basic underlying data -- numbers -- and that

division remains an open sore today.



After WWII, surviving vets plowed into graduate educations, families,

and careers with dedicated honorable, almost childish eagerness. New

discoveries were deeply thrilling. In the VN War, many who survived

undergraduate education plowed into

graduate school in order to avoid being drafted -- not in order to

experience the thrill of discovery.  And many stayed until they had PhDs

in whatever choice they made.  Thus, they doomed themselves to the

drudgery of teaching (and publish or perish) matters in which they had

no deep seated interest.



Where are the Geo. Marshall's. the screwy great Geo Patton's, the

Truman's, the Vandenberg's, the Oppenheimer's, the Teller's, the von

Neumann's, the Hull's, the Skinner's, and so on -- make your own list

and note how few names you have from the last 20 or so years.



Jerry has provided the "right" answer. I submit, however, that

implementation of that answer is nowhere in sight yet. We have

not been sufficiently challenged, or perhaps threatened, to

discover the leaders who can find and lead a nation to the "right"

answers. NASA got the world to the moon; now NASA grovels

before the Congress for funds using a cyclical expansion of the

size of the ozone hole or by appealing to doomsday fictions of

anthropogenic climate changes. EPA was clearly founded on

frauds which continue to this day with new threats of ruining

Planet Earth. How utterly presumptuous! I do not know if there

is a God, but if there is, then He must be splitting a gut laughing

at us puny beings.



Because of the vast differences  between legal evidence and scientific

evidence, the courts are a principal tool used by those

who would  thwart the "right" answers. Jerry, we need a serious

challenge to surface a crop of leaders who might lead us out of

the doldrums. In our hearts, the "right" answers are known; I suspect we

just need the "right" challenges again. Many of you

on this List have met great past challenges and some continue to try

today. There are a lot of good people out there -- the right

circumstances to harvest them have not arisen.  It will take time (and

some good humor), but it'll work out ok.



Best wishes all,

Maury Siskel          maury@webtexas.com

_____________________

Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the

leather straps.

==================================



Jerry Cohen wrote:



I would agree that in the best of all worlds, studies should be

judged on their scientific merit. Unfortunately in the real world

this is often not the case. Those who fund scientific research can

have a vested interest in preserving their power so that research

results inimical them would tend to be viewed with disfavor. For

example, anything indicating that radiation exposure might not

be as harmful as commonly believed would not be conducive to supporting

large budgets for radiation safety programs and

would therefore threaten those involved in these programs. The NSWS

provides a classic example. Those who believe that the current DOE

funded studies on low-level radiation effects will produce unbiased

results are likely deluding themselves.



Perhaps the Taiwanese Co-60 investigation may be flawed, but

if the indicated results could be verified, it would certainly pose a

threat to the current radiation safety establishment. Therefore, in the

current climate, it is hard to be optimistic that confirmatory

studies will be undertaken.



 ----- Original Message -----

 From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@yahoo.com>

 To: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; Muckerheide

 <muckerheide@comcast.net>; Dr. Theodore Rockwell <

Maybe the authors would make their paper available on their own web

sites for interested people to download?

..........









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

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/