[lepton]

Crichton proposes a centralized institute of environmental science, as if such an academy would be the sole arbiter of truth. Such places are hotbeds of political influence, personal interests, and opressive groupthink. He's crazy to think it would work from a motivational perspective, to say nothing of trying to manage that much data with a hierarchical system.

Thank you. I agree regarding the suggested bureaocracy...though certain things, like separating those that generate the models from those that run them are a good idea. His speech though is a fairly good representation of certain of the fundemental flaws in the "science community" - more what I was paying attention to - which complements the main article.

[Carry_Okie]

though certain things, like separating those that generate the models from those that run them are a good idea.

The raw data is where that idea falls apart. No matter who models or operates the system, GIGO. That's where the focus of my system lies. If the owner of the data doesn't have a stake in its accuracy, fuggedabout a model.

Crichton's antithesis was quite good, but IMO that puts him in company with any number of environmental critics. It would take a blind mongoloid not to notice that the system is dysfunctional (which includes about 75% of California voters).

Coming up with workable solutions is much harder than merely complaining (which is what distinguishes the book to which I linked you (yes, I wrote it)). I should know how hard it is; I've been working on the problem for five years now. Please consider the reviews.