In this episode of "he said; she said", I think we've seen one side saying
that UN researchers found no evidence of particular chemicals in soil
samples taken at a bombed out plant, and the other saying that a CIA
operative did find evidence of the same chemical before the attack.
Can either side point to the citations in the open literature that at least
show why they believe what they believe? I'm pretty sure that neither of
the correspondents on this list had access to soil samples themselves.
I hear violent disagreement between "X happened", and "Y happened" and no
attempt to find out whether both, or neither happened, or how to decide
what the evidence means given inconsitent results in repeated trials. I
won't be surprised if the basic positions of the participants don't change.
The extropic point is that evidence matters, and neither side has pointed
to any. (referred to it, yes, but not shown where anyone else can access
--- C. J. Cherryh, "Invader", on why we visit very old buildings: "A sense of age, of profound truths. Respect for Chris Hibbert something hands made, that's stood through storms and email@example.com wars and time. It persuades us that things we do may last and matter." http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert/home.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT