Honorable Forum:
The cutting edge of change is by definition at the extreme of the "normal"
distribution. If science requires intellectual honesty, it should promote,
not restrict, shifts that are consistent with its principles. One should
always be suspicious of restriction of speech. Science is by definition, a
fomenter of change. Why the priesthood clings to tradition, however, is no
mystery. But it is not science. It is CONTROL, not facilitation.
The onus of proof should be on the entities restricting sunlight, not on
those who want to let it in. Failure to provide reasons for restriction is
prima facie evidence of rationalization, not reason. That is, one should not
have to go to great pains to justify transparency, one should have to meet a
very high standard for suppressing speech or information. That done, the
information should be suppressed, but the fact that it was suppressed should
not. However, the keepers of the modern era's New Dark Ages may not agree.
Power is not relinquished easily, noblesse oblige notwithstanding.
Luckily, this forum is an open one.
WT
"The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual
discipline." --Raymond Gilmore
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Greenberg" <greenb...@ucdavis.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:48 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are reviews anonymous?
Quick question that came up recently that I was curious about -- I
know REVIEWERS are anonymous, but are the reviews you get supposed to
be anonymous, or can they be posted in a public forum?
--j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2716 - Release Date: 03/01/10
07:34:00
