Brad


> > I would certainly not dissent from the accusation that scientists lie.
> [snip]
>
> Surely there is nothing *particularly* shameful about this (i.e.,
> *more* shameful than lawyers or teachers of doctors or managers or
> [whoevers] lying), for

It is particularly bad and particularly shameful for scientists and
technologists to lie because they, like priests and jurists have a
responsibility to explicitly state what constitutes the limits of their (our)
understanding. Lyotard put the status of truth in relation to science quite
nicely when he stated that '....Learning is the set of statements which to the
exclusion of all other statements , denote or describe objects and may be
declared true or false...' If a statement exists in the grey zone between true
and false - then it is shameful of the  declarer (the scientist) to proclaim
it as truth. Lyotard goes on to say much more that is interesting in relation
to the status of truth in relation to science but the core element is that
science depends on other forms of knowledge, narrative, political etc to
legitimate and make its status as true acceptable.

i propose that the reason it is more shameful is because of the huge effects
that scientific and technical work can have in the world - GM and BSE raise
their heads above the horizon of what is legitimate and acceptable.

regards as usual

sdv