Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Musing On Rom’s Case

Posted by Foxfier on 2009/11/27


Taken nearly whole-sale from my comments here.

Another reader, Kcom, drew attention to the other Big Story of this week– the AGW fraud coming out.

Oddly enough, (8^D) I had previously wondered at the difference in my response to the two stories– after all, they were both “scientists say something that pisses some people off, and may demand changes being morally needed.”  Was the difference because I wanted to believe one and not the other?  Clearly, the demands of the climate guys would touch my life more than “people diagnosed as ‘human vegetables’ aren’t always.”

I think it’s instructive to notice the difference between the two cases; the AGW fraud folks make their entire living off of showing that humans are killing us all, and they stand to gain power from their findings being put forth, do not act as though their claims are true (Stop using so much fossil fuels or the world will end! But I’m flying to the AGW conference. In a private jet.) and they release conclusions very quickly to the popular media while trying to control the scientific media to prevent any disagreement.

The folks involved with Rom’s case make their living otherwise (although it does seem to be Dr. Laureys’ pet theory that those diagnosed with PVS often aren’t), stand to gain mostly personal attacks because their theories make “useless eaters” that can be easily dehumanized much harder to dehumanize, act as though they believe their results (My scans show brain activity in the normal range! Get this man to therapy!) and the story didn’t show up in the popular media for three years— after putting out a paper on the topic.

This new article (evil AP!  Warning!) makes me more confident in Dr. Laureys’ group, since 1) he’s acting like the guy is a patient instead of a project ( “How would you like me discussing your IQ on the Internet?”) and because their response to attacks on the facilitated communication is to point out that they’re working on a study to validate it (this could be bad, unless they’ve already got all the information and are just writing it up, but I’m willing to offer the benefit of the doubt since they’ve shown a willingness to test themselves before) and are aware it’s controversial.

Oh, and this line is epic:
He refused to discuss it in the media, saying he will follow the classical route of scientific peer reviews and publication in specialized journals before making it public to the world at large.

Of course, there’s the other point that I’m biased away from making dire changes in any situation– not sure the guy is dead?  Not “as good as dead,” or “has a life not worth living,” or “is way more useful if we kill him to save twenty other people who will be able to pay us.” Assume they are alive and treat them morally. Don’t kill them for ease, emotion or spare parts.

Not sure that there’s even long-term warming going on, let alone exactly what is causing it? Then don’t force huge, expensive, totalitarian changes that will only work if one of many theories is right, and at best will just slow down disaster while removing our ability to adapt.

Presumption in favor of life and basic rights, basically. Probably related to my not trusting folks with more power than utterly needful.  Which would be why I like republic-flavored gov’ts over democracies…. (Two wolves and  a sheep, y’know?)

(another reader did some similar musing here)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: