Brad,
Thank you for your posting.  If it contains a message I am unable to discern
it.

My concern is with scientific lying.  The particular field which concerns me
is has no political overtones beyoond those associated with all scientific
debate.
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/  "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists
Cheat."

As far as I can tell, you seem to be saying that when scientists (and other
professionals) lie, they may well be doing so in order to maintain the high
standards to which they are comitted.  In other words, there is good
scientific lying and bad scientific lying.  Accordingly, scientific liars
should sometimes be applauded for their high motivations, not condemned for
their deceit.

Please tell me whether or not that is what you want me to understand.

Yours Sincerely


John Hewitt




>
> "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
>
> --
> 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.