From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: drugs
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:31:15 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com (C J Silverio)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com

---
For your amusement, from talk.politics.drugs.

hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
|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
Xref: sparky talk.bizarre:32119 alt.cascade:2185