Steve below talks about how scientists were fooled by the Soviet Union. So were Keynesian economists who believe in activist government intervention in the economy. See this commentary from earlier today: http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=Guest+Commentary&content_idx=32395 > CENTRAL PLANNING CONVICTIONS IN 1989 > The private economy is "like a machine without an effective steering wheel." > - Samuelson > " Despite the gargantuan character of the coordination problem, Soviet central planning has worked reasonably well." > - Campbell McConnell, Best Selling Economic Textbook Writer > " Stalin's economic organization was remarkably successful." [1] > - Robert B. Reich, Harvard Professor > " The real question is not whether we want elements of socialism on planning to abridge our personal freedom, but by how much." > - Textbook Writers: Baumol and Blinder, Princeton -Declan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:56:12 -0400 From: Steven J. Allen <editor@private> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private> As you may know, I'm working on my PhD in Biodefense at George Mason University's National Center for Biodefense. During the 1970s and 1980s, the scientific establishment -- including publications like Scientific American -- worked very hard to create the impression that the Soviets were in accord with the treaty banning biological weapons. In reality, the Soviets had tens of thousands of people turning out a new type of bioweapon every year or so. By the end of the Cold War, they had an arsenal of bioweapons that, in terms of destructive potential, far surpassed their nuclear arsenal. I believe that, had the Soviet bureaucracy understood what they had, the Cold War might have had a different outcome. The fact that the Soviets were building bioweapons was obvious to any informed observer. But scientists who were advocates of the bioweapons treaty worked overtime to find some alternative explanation -- _any_ alternative explanation -- for evidence of Soviet violations. The anthrax outbreak at Sverdlovsk in 1979 was the result of "tainted meat." When Soviet scientists, in open sources, referenced their research on how to make pathogens more pathogenic, well, that research was just part of an effort to develop vaccines. And Yellow Rain was just bee droppings. HAHAHAHAHA. Scientists are easily fooled. Lots of scientists believed Uri Geller, the psychic spoon-bender; see Geller's Web site (http://www.uri-geller.com) for documentation. It took former magician Johnny Carson, working with The Amazing Randi, to expose Geller as a fraud. Biologists were more likely that any other professional group to join the Nazis. It is said that the remarkable thing about the Manhattan Project is that so _few_ communists penetrated it, given how few non-communist physicists were running around the Ivy League in those days. Scientists provided the rationale for white supremacy; indeed, the book that the ACLU defended at the Scopes trial (_A Civic Biology_) described a hierarchy of inferior and superior races, and suggested that the disabled be put out of their misery. Scientists, especially the elite ones, refused to accept the idea of continental drift -- something that's obvious to every eight-year-old who looks at a globe -- and scientists once told us that you could discern a person's potential for criminality from the bumps on his head. In the 1960s and '70s, when radical environmentalists needed a justification for government domination of the economy, "impending Ice Age" theorists provided it. (Today some of the same scientists are promoters of Global Warming theory.) In the 1980s, when the Soviets wanted to promote Nuclear Winter theory, so that the West would unilaterally disarm, there were plenty of scientists to provide support for this now-discredited view. Every day, some scientists grab for more power over our lives. They manipulate the meanings of words like "addiction," "race," "species," and "carcinogen" to achieve the policy goals they want. Just the other day, The Washington Post reported that it was the scientists at the FDA who wanted to impose European Union-style restrictions on genetically modified foods, if only they could figure a way around the law. Now don't get me wrong: I like scientists. I just don't want them making science policy. Basing science policy on the views of scientists is like deciding whether God exists by surveying seminary students. -- Steve Allen P.S. Of course, I don't trust non-scientists, either. A National Research Council survey found that 48% of newspaper editors thought humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous. And a few years ago, 23 people attending the Harvard commencement were asked what causes the seasons of the year. Two knew the answer. Yeah, I want THAT crowd making decisions about Global Warming. Speaking of Global Warming: The earth probably is getting warmer, in the sense that we are emerging from a relatively cold period. Temperature cycles are a necessary characteristic of world climate, and humans have seen many of them; a warm period made possible the great Viking conquests that stretched from America to Russia. But "Global Warming" -- in the sense that such warming is (a) catastrophic AND (b) man-made AND (c) preventable by any means compatible with peace and democracy -- is an absurdity. ========================== Steven J. Allen editor@private _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 04 2004 - 23:40:30 PDT