---- Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: > A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to > the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a > television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the > public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the > collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. > Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to > make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of > a non-truth.
If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. mcneely
