On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, John C. Pavao wrote:

> I would tend to agree with you in a better world.  I would rather not feel
> that it is necessary to disregard, or at least suspect, information based
> upon its' source.

Nothing wrong with being suspicious, but "disregard" is something
else again.  Critical thinking is not reserved for a better
world; it is needed *here*.

> But from what I've seen as regards the objectiveness of
> mainstream nutrition information, health information, and pharmaceutical
> information, I see no way to separate the information from the source.

All information comes from sources, and all sources have
interests.  It is very unlikely that you and I are ever in a
position to know all of those interests.  There is no basis for
assuming, say, that an academic scientist whose career depends
upon grants, tenure, etc. is more objective than a scientist who
works for a drug company or an agricultural consortium.

>  There seems to be an awful lot of information that is paid for by the very
> group which stands to profit from a favorable finding, information that is
> blindly accepted as fact by the majority.

I may pay you to find facts that are favorable to the image of my
products, but that fact doesn't make you any less objective as a
scientist.  Your *methods* determine your objectivity.  If your
methodology is correct, it doesn't matter who is paying you.  It
may well be that if you *fail* to find facts favorable to my
products, then nothing at all gets published and no one is the
wiser.  But if your research if properly done, then your findings
stand on their own merits, regardless of the motives of me, your
employer.

> I think it's naive to think that researchers are going
> to be completely objective (or even be able to be) in that type of
> situation.

The story is typically more complex.  Research uncovers small
pieces of information; it takes a long time for the big picture
to emerge.  Meanwhile, they tend to look for more pieces like the
ones they've already found.  This may not be objective, but it's
the way people work, no matter who is paying them.  If soybeans
are really bad for people, it will become more and more difficult
to devise research that shows that they are good for people.

Science is not the product of disinterested inquirers.  It is the
dialectical product of real people, with heavy investments in
careers, be they in academia or in industry.

In the case of the soybean, what we have is less a disagreement
about facts than a disagreement about the meaning of those facts.
It ought to be possible to determine whether either party to the
disagreement has the better case.

> There may not be enough information on soybeans to determine health risks.
>  However, it would appear that no matter what, they need processing in
> order to be edible.  This rules them out as far as this diet is concerned.

True enough, but one might well be interested in knowing whether
this particular part of the diet is worth adhering to.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]