OK. Well, I liken it to evidence-based medicine. I don't really consider that sort of thing dilution or lowering the bar. It seems to me they're simply trying to ground policy in science. It's certainly extension of the science into non-scientific domains. And anytime you do that, you run the risk of backflow from the non-science into the science. So, having the same people do both activities is risky. You can't win if you don't play, though.
On 06/30/2015 03:23 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
My objection was to your claim that nothing is for sure so might as well equivalence activism+science vs. science. I see this group of people as lowering the bar for scientific inquiry in their field, and at once diluting the efforts of social workers and other kinds of advocates. In my book that's a far worse offense than whatever benefit they think they'll get from coupling their inquiry to their advocacy. I guess if that's what they want, they can have it. As for the rest, whatever, I was just killing time until my tests came back.
-- glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
