Jim Nicholas, #51
Very well said.

“Correlations do not prove cause and effect, but they may point the way to studies that…”

It’s in that wide-open intellectual frontier between, on the one hand, a human-designed study which only tests the hypothesis that certain correlations prove causality (and that, coincidently, must take its place amongst a plurality of other timely ‘opposing’ studies), and, on the other hand, what I call “the Machine’s” potential gain should the causality already be proven, that the media has set up shop – their own lights, cameras, “experts,” cued audience, and all.

If the plot of the act wasn’t so inherently dishonest and its political prescriptions so insidiously dangerous, I’d be saying, “Jolly good show!”

Seems obvious, but if we increased our citizens’ aptitude in the hard sciences, it’d impinge on the media’s promiscuous propagandizing on science matters. If the media relies on the old axiom, “A sucker is born every day” (and it appears to me that the GW-junk science does), then its corellary may be its undoing: “If we can train a scientist every other day, then at least we’ll be keeping up.”