What a terrible opinion piece. Sure, the Home Office can disagree with their scientific adviser. But then they must either bring arguments to why his science is wrong, or just say they are moralists and all drugs are bad m'kay. Either way, they could have just ignored his advice without firing him.
Also he reminds us that scientists have been wrong a lot of times, which is true. But what would you rather have, policy governed by rational arguments and scientific evidence or what? Policy governed by gut feeling or moralism... At least science tries to learn from its mistakes and is willing to incorporate new findings, facts and evidence.
Then the idiot of the article drags in the nazis as a comparison, wtf? Terrible arguments.
2 comments:
What a terrible opinion piece. Sure, the Home Office can disagree with their scientific adviser. But then they must either bring arguments to why his science is wrong, or just say they are moralists and all drugs are bad m'kay. Either way, they could have just ignored his advice without firing him.
Also he reminds us that scientists have been wrong a lot of times, which is true. But what would you rather have, policy governed by rational arguments and scientific evidence or what? Policy governed by gut feeling or moralism...
At least science tries to learn from its mistakes and is willing to incorporate new findings, facts and evidence.
Then the idiot of the article drags in the nazis as a comparison, wtf? Terrible arguments.
Nazi comparisons are most of the time a sign of weakness, except when i use them when being drunk.
Post a Comment