4 ms·
That “point” is that a special interest group is justified in preventing scientific study into a area because he feels that his entirely non encompassing and no
by talltimtom 8y ago
That “point” is that a special interest group is justified in preventing scientific study into a area because he feels that his entirely non encompassing and non-scientific observation would invalidate any results he does not agree with. It is wrong on so many levels. That is why it is being downvoted.
- vorpalhex 8y ago> in preventing scientific study into a area The policy came about because a particular CDC head in the 1980s specifically said he intended to show firearms as the root cause of violence, nevermind what any actual stats said. The CDC to this day still has problems with doing a study, not liking the result, and then deciding it would rather not publish the study - https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#1ce83800299a https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-... This has no effect on private research. It only prevents federal money from being used for a traditionally partisan cause.
- tacomonstrous 8y agoIs your argument that one possibly questionable study invalidates the entire field from being eligible for federal funding? That would mean that the government shouldn't fund any research whatsoever!
- vorpalhex 8y agoNo my argument is that the major organization pushing for this has repeatedly been caught on record, under oath, explicitly admitting to bias and consistently pushing biased research. If even 5% of a research coming out of a publication was biased, nobody would let anything in the publication be cited. When that publication is funded exclusively by tax payer money paid to a government with a fiduciary duty...