Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: scientific method

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "jay gee" <jgj23 AT mindspring.com>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: scientific method
  • Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:42:11 +0000


Rick Williams wrote:

> Leigh Hauter wrote:
> > My personal problem with scientific method is not the method but,
> > like everything else, the people and organization who control what
> > science is inquiring about.
>
> To put it in perspective what percentage of scientists are you suggesting
> are dishonest people? I would suggest that there are very few indeed and it
> is mostly in the lay public's mind that things are so perverse. It is true
> that if you are a doing a controlled study and the results make your
> organization or company look bad, you may not make it public. But this goes
> for not just companies but for any organization.

Few scientists start out dishonest. Most who fall by the wayside
do so as a result of their circumstances or environment. After
all, true scientific inquiry is dependent on honest and accurate
reporting -- right? But if a scientist works in a place where corruption
is the order of the day, many will collect their checks and fall in line.
That is the only legitimate behavioral explanation for the many
scientists employed by tobacco companies, pharmaceutical firms,
auto makers, tire companies and others who don't go public, i.e.,
"blow the whistle," when false or illegitimate research is passed
off on the public to make a buck. Large numbers of those working
as scientists would rather continue in their high status positions,
bend the truth and rationalize, than be honest burger flippers.

Society and the courts seem to endorse this principle by failing
to incarcerate scientists when their actions cause harm to the
public and they have not sought to protect the public by coming
out.

> > Rather than 'people science' we often
> > have 'corporate science' and as the economics textbook says, a
> > corporation is concerned with making money.
>
> Part of the purpose of a corporation may be to "make money" although that is
> not always completely true either since it depends upon what their purpose
> is. But the main purpose of any organization, must be to provide something
> in the way of goods or services that others want or need or you will not be
> able to prosper. Corporations allow us to do that whereby other forms of
> organization (such as coops, mutuals) have not always worked as well as we
> would like.

Corporations have their place, but all too many are corrupt.
It is what they know how to do. One of the things that corporate
forms of ownership have long been allowed to do is cover
criminal or negligent behavior. Because a corporation
cannot be put in jail is a logical reason to use it as a way
to circumvent the law. Once the founders are gone, the
firm lives on at the whims of current management.

> > And making money and
> > helping people aren't necessarily the same thing.
>
> They had better be or whatever you are doing is doomed to failure. What
> organizations are you suggesting are only there for making money and do not
> provide any goods or services of value? (OK, OK, I know that some are
> thinking I am describing some parts of the government:)
>
> The demonizing that I see on this list does not seem to be a positive and
> uplifting kind of discourse. Wouldn't it be better to specify something that
> you honestly is wrong rather than take the brush and paint so widely as has
> been done?

Although there have been some attempts at demonizing on this list, those
posts seem more visceral reactions on the parts of those who made
them than as conscious attempts to sway the opinions of others. Many
people have strong reactions and opinions based on their personal
experiences and dealings with bad guys, or serious research into
specific subject matter.

For those who have not run up against corporate or political corruption
in action, it is easy to write off someone else's reaction to it as paranoia
or demonizing.

I, for one, don't require a poster to back up every statement with
specific references, especially on a subject like corporate corruption
where the record is so overwhelmingly obvious you would have to
be living in a vacuum to believe there was not a problem.

Don't forget Rick, one rotten apple CAN spoil the whole barrel,
and a few rotten apples DO (Enron, WorldCom, etc., the entire
list is longer than your arm).


Jay Gee
not a farmer -- but interested in farming







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page