Who should decide?

Who should decide? When it comes to things measurable, but not necessarily with great accuracy, who should decide? Should the scientist who is supposed to qualify the precision of his measures with the accuracy of the process determine the basis for decision? Or should the legal system – juries and judges – make the decision based on a particular case set before them?

Today, it is even easier to supplant science and replace it with a state of fear. Fake blogs, journalists working closely with trial attorneys, and doctors and scientists on tort-lawyer payrolls create and spread specious theories and crank out statistical associations without any real evidence of cause and effect. Panic spreads and is reinforced in court-proceedings. As one theory is knocked down, such as the measles vaccine causing autism, another one – thimerosal – springs up. [The FDA and junk science Washington Times Editorial]

One of the most fearful phenomena about conflict these days seems to be persistence. People do not learn. Once an idea takes hold and overcomes them, they seek any method for its expression and will not stop. The legal system accommodates such behavior as, for instance, in the recent attempt to sue God. There is an acceptance of ideas not based on proper evidence and reason that keeps them alive and pressuring civil systems.

Comments are closed.