| I am sorry you took that as my meaning! I certainly didn’t intend to claim you needed to prove your case 100% or be excoriated, and I understand you taking affront, given that interpretation! My understanding was that you were arguing that any hint of disagreeing with current scientific understanding was equivalent to believing in witchcraft, given the similar lack of evidence — an eminently defensible position, no question. However: the witch hunters at Salem also had plenty of evidence to support their claims — albeit evidence we can now see with modern eyes as hopelessly wrong and heavily weighted by the powers that be in order to advance their own interests (land grabs, mostly). Unfortunately the average citizen at the time had no way of interrogating the veracity and efficacy of either the claims of witchcraft, nor the very tests by which said witchcraft could supposedly be revealed. Which leads to my intended point, which is that I sure hope this doesn’t turn out to be another leaded paint situation (we knew lead was poison but didn’t account for dust particles and childhood curiosity), or a climate change situation (the companies themselves knew it was harmful and flooded the field with misleading studies), or an arsenic situation (basically Victorian leaded paint), or a tobacco situation (4 out of 5 doctors recommend X), etc. Essentially: misaligned incentives can be equally, if not more, powerful than the scientific method itself when it comes to shaping public policy. But I do I apologize for glibly mirroring your own phrasing when making my own point, I can see how that would be frustrating, especially without the added historical context with which you may be unfamiliar. |