> "Jerry Kraus" yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:544b08f8-1d29-4b5f-a2b6-0df9803f0ad2@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 8, 2:36 am, William Elliot hevanet.remove.com> wrote:
>

>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Bret Cahill wrote:

>

>>> Most physical scientists who are only getting paid by a university
>>> have no conflicts of interest.

>

>>> They can say what they think is true and it won't change their income
>>> one way or another.

>

>> Do wrong research, that is not get the 'right' results can get your tenure
>> questioned, you're university's funding threathen, your funding slashed,
>> your credibility smeared and proven wrong by 'right' minded 'scientiests'
>> who do research on a pay for your pet results basis.

>

>> For example, the guy who did damning research about use of lead was
>> broadsided by the lead companies.

>
> My point, precisely.  It's decision by committee, but, there's no
> really objective way to decide who's right and who's wrong.  So, even
> when they're aren't huge business or government interests involved,
> the decision comes down to petty university politics.  There is no
> methodology of "interpreting" experiments.  Results of relevant
> research elsewhere are regularly ignored, other possible
> interpretations are ignored.  This is unacceptable.  A formal system
> for integrating all meaningful, releveant research and concepts into
> the intepretation of experimental results needs to be developed.  It
> doesn't currently exist.  That's why scientific progress tends to be
> so sporadic and unpredictable.
>
> ***
> So do you know a better way of interpreting results than what they use now,
> or are you just blowing hot air?