QandO's Latest

Some good stuff going on over there. Article the First:

McQ discusses the recent spate of retired generals lining up to criticize Rumsfeld. His take?

That's my gripe with these generals. Instead of literally putting their stars on the desk, they chose to wait until they were safely retired to take a stand. It's too late then. When they gripe from retirement, many people are going to take that criticism less seriously. How many times in the past have we seen "sour grapes" cloaked as serious critcism from the safety of retirement?

Yeah. I think a lot of this recent criticism is more about the military venting about Rumsfeld's management style, than having valid concerns over his results. Rumsfeld has kicked a fair bit of ass in the military heirarchy and it is coming back to bite him.

Article the Second:

McQ's take on government-run science isn't quite so good in my opinion:

While science is science, how it is funded (and why) may drive the findings of various studies more than we'd like to admit. ...
It's all about securing funding. And you have a better chance of securing public funding by appealing to the particular agenda of those likely to provide the funding:

I think he, and John Stossel whom he quotes, are right in that there are a lot of programs getting funding by confirming what the government wants to hear. That said I think a lot of this problem stems from how poorly science and technology is reported. Unfortunately the comments go off on a huge global warming tangent and never come back. They need threaded comments over there something fierce.

I think a lot of the bad popular science that makes headline happens for two reasons: few reporters have any meaningful scientific background and the newest-research-is-the-best mentality.

I know blaming the Mainstream Media is very popular, but it is also very true in this case. Unlike politics which a lot of newsies love and obsess over, science is mostly unknown to them. Science is on the side of their brains they don't often use. Now in the advertising game they have a saying: "you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle." This carries over very well into the news media. Newsies can't tell if the science is any damn good. But they can sell the sizzle. Oh boy can they. McQ uses the example of "crack baby" stories which were based on shoddy research but made for great coverage on 20/20.

The other problem is far more endemic to the entire population. Our modernist mentalities assume that the latest research is the best. But that may not be so. People used to say that potatoes and starch made you fat. Remember that? Then researchers said no, potatoes are starch and good for you as long as you don't cover them with unhealthy stuff like sour cream and cheese. They were wrong. Now we realize that your body will metabolize all those carbohydrates into fats unless you burn them off with regular exercise. In truth, if an idea has a body of supporting research behind it, then discarding it after the latest far research may not be such a good idea.