[ExI] israelis defeat physics

Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 13 21:15:14 UTC 2009

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I assumed what spike meant was that the fact that health statistics
> would deteriorate as a result of invasion was so obvious as to be of
> little scientific interest,

I think it disingenuous to suggest that since a scientifically
prestigious organization applied scientific methods in the course of
an inquiry, that a novel result of scientific interest was the goal.
Scientific methods were used to insure the accuracy of the result and
the consequent acceptance by others of that result on account of it's
rigor.  The intent of the study -- in terms of data --was to find out
how many people were killed by the "war", not new scientific truth.

> and therefore the Lancet must have
> published the papers for some other reason, i.e. as propaganda.

Was the Lancet study undertaken by opponents of the war for the
purpose of turning public opinion against it?  I'm inclined to agree.
   But absent some corruption of the methodology, that does nothing to
invalidate the result of the study.  And if it is propaganda, is it
truthful?  And is there a difference between this thing we're calling
propaganda when it's based on truth, and when it's based on the
debasement of truth?

Of course there is, we know there is, and we know what it is.  It's
the fundamental difference between right and wrong, between those who
lie and those who tell the truth.  Between those who have credibility
and those who have none.   Between the good guys and the bad guys.
We're six years down the road now, and anyone can know the truth who
cares to.

In a democracy the triggerman-in-chief is elected.  Thus the
importance of an informed electorate. Thus the importance of a free
press.  Thus the importance of open government.  Thus the importance
of truthfulness.

No need to rehash the events of the last eight years.  You ought to be
able to say with some confidence who was truthful and who was not, who
is credible and who is not.  The Bush cabal, or Lancet?  I leave it to

I hope I don't sound too pissy about this, the last eight years have
been hard.  It's not personal.

Best, Jeff Davis

  "During times of universal deceit, telling the
         truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                         George Orwell

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list