From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: drugs
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:13:21 -0500

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

>In article <9209282222.AA01304@helium> dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>>
>>The quoted "scientific evidence" was not original research, it was a
>>"review of published research".  In case you haven't been paying attention,
>>80-90% of all published research is utter BS, published for the sake of
>>publishing in a publish or perish universe, research done by those who
>>don't understand proper research methods, can't do the math, and are
>>peer reviewed by equally unqualified dottards.

>    Speak for your own field.  You do not possess the expertise to issue
>such a blanket condemnation of "all published research".

Indeed.  I was appalled by Kent's statement when I first read it
but decided against responding at that time.  However, it reveals
a pernicious kind of anti-intellectualism that I find very disturbing
and I think something should be said.

Kent declares that "80-90%" of all research is worthless -- I wonder
what research he's citing -- and uses this as a justification for
valuing his own experience (which we only have his word for) above
that of the objective and scientific.  Even if we grant his assertion,
what is the practical consequence?

It would still be the case that some research is done properly, with
adequate controls and isolation of variables.  It would imply that
one approach research with more caution and that more verification
take place.  But, I would argue, it would still not elevate
anecdote to the same or higher standard of reliablity -- which is
what Kent claims for his experiences.  Haven't we all heard this
kind of attack before?  Isn't this exactly the kind of attack that
is conducted by UFO enthusiasts, Satanic conspiracy paranoids,
faith healers -- in fact, the whole vast panoply of fringe groups
and cults that rely on superstition and myth instead of science
and reason?

There is also the question of contradictory experience.  My experience
going to college in the late 60s, working in the 70s, and going to grad
school and working in the 80s, is totally at variance with that described
by Kent.  The most intellectually fertile and creative people used
illegal drugs.  They were the most politically committed -- generally
to "liberal causes" like opposition to the Vietnam war, civil and
women's rights, nuclear disarmament, etc.  These were the people who
went into professions and earned high salaries or gravitated to
academia, got their PhDs and now are tenured profs or researchers.
I'm sure that my experience gibes with that of other 40-ish people
who post here.  And guess what?  My experience also gibes with
social research on the illegal drug using population.

One thing is clear: if personal experience is to be valued over
objective research, it argues EVEN MORE FORCEFULLY for toleration
of lifestyle choice based upon relativism -- i.e., there is no
right or wrong choice and one cannot generalize from one's own
experience.  I doubt that Kent had that in mind when he made his
assertions, but that is the ineluctable conclusion.

-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs