Poor Richard (
Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:06:25 UTC

Arun Gupta ( wrote:
: You see, science is not like law, where one is supposed to present
: the best possible case for one's client or pet theory, and gloss over
: or misrepresent evidence when it doesn't suit one. Once someone
: exhibits this a few times, at least in the science that I'm familiar
: with, physics, that someone is not taken very seriously. "Preponderance
: of evidence" is meaningless, unless it is obvious that the evidence-
: collection was done with a modicum of integrity.

In response, Frank Fujita <> wrote:

> I'm wondering about this, because it seems that the scientists that
> have the biggest reputations treat science like law, presenting
> the best case that can be made, while the cautious scientists who qualify
> their theories and show counter-examples, never become eminent.

Poor Richard agrees with Dr. Fujita and believes that many scientists
do not demonstrate a "modicum of integrity"; Poor Richard thinks that most
of what fills the biological literature (almost 2000 journals now), is
bullshit and not worth the paper it is printed on. That is perhaps
why the government insists on us calling it an "advertisement"

Poor Richard thinks that the peer review system is badly warped and that
these two commentators have the right idea: Most scientific literature
would be better off never having been printed, as law would be better off
with fewer lawyers, more jails, fewer opinions and more facts.

To find out more about the anon service, send mail to
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to