John Hewitt wrote:
>
> I read Brad McCormick's posting and also the E-mail he sent direct to me.
>  It contains nothing that seems sensitive, so I have taken the liberty of
> tacking it below. I hope he does not mind.)  I would reply to them but I am
> unable to discern a clear message in his comments.
>
> As far as I can tell, he sems to be saying that scientists and other
> professionals sometimes lie in order to maintain the high standards to which
> they are comitted.  Accordingly, he seems to be suggesting, when they lie
> they should sometimes be applauded for their high motivations, not condemned
> for their deceit.  In other words, there is good scientific lying and bad
> scientific lying.

"People are always saying that things aren't just black and white", etc.
Yes?

I was giving an example (and not a lightly made-up one, but one
of which I became aware from the news media!) of how, even in the
extra-empirical empyrean of "SCIENCE", there may be times
when to *lie* may be the human[e]ly *right* thing to do.

So, yes, I have to agree with the "message" you got from what I wrote.
But it should be quite obvious that for Werner Heisenberg
to lie to the Nazis about the feasibility of an atomic bomb is
rather different from (e.g.) Madam Curie lying [if only by
keeping silent...] about the carcinogenic effects of X-rays.

If Heisenberg lied about fission, it was for the good of humanity.
For Curie to lie about X-rays was simply self-promotion of the
vocational and avocational objectives with which she
identified her self.

>
> Can he confirm that this is what he wants to say?  If so, I would be
> interested in examples that do not have political overtones.

By "politics", I understand all human praxis which has
anything to do with shaping two or more persons' shared
social life.  I can't imagine anything *without* political
overtones, except perhaps a hermit succeeding in
instantiating the paradigm of
the tree which falls in a forest where there is
nobody to hear.

> I would also
> like to know what tests could be applied to distinguish them.
[snip]

The "tests" are, hopefully, those of what I believe Aristotle called
"phronesis": that overarching form of social reasonableness which
situates even "reason", understood as such semiotic formations as
deductive argumentation, and the exact sciences of nature,
into "fit" places in our social life.  As Hans-Georg Gadamer
said:

    We are a conversation

Everything, in my opinion, needs to give an accounting
of itself to this conversation which we are, and,
apart from which there is not even nothing -- for
nothing itself is one of the things which gets deliberated about
in conversation (e.g., in the discourse of scientists
and philosophers).

Of course, that is not a first-order answer to your
question, but rather a hypothesis about the social structures
which I believe need to be nurtured for your question (or
anything else!) to be most wisely considered. [Habermas,
and his notion of "discourse ethics" would be another source,
here....]

Does any of this help clarify, and, I hope, *illuminate* anything?

Yours in discourse(sic!)....

+\brad mccormick

--
  Let your light so shine before men,
              that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)

  Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)

<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [log in to unmask]
  914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/