> 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
Good suggestion. All I have is various press releases on the
WEB. I posted one the other day. I am not sure if posting more
of them will help as then I wouldn't be surprised to see an
argument about the political stance of the media in question.
But I can if anyone is interested.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT