It's tough to make new rules. First, you have to care. Then you have to find others who care, devise rules, create penalties, become prepared to impose those penalties. The list is endless.
My new rule however is so practical, so beneficial, and so easy, that it will probably become the 13th or 14 commandment. Wanna peek?
I propose that no blowhard, anywhere, may publish, publicly pronounce, bloviate, or reference ANY scientific study which does not on the very first page provide all the names of those who funded the study, and when in summary announces said study results are better than..., must name and demonstrate all the better thans.
For instance, and I am totally making this up, suppose you read of a study that says dogs shouldn't chew bones. In fact, the results of this study appeared in my morning paper. Wouldn't I be well served to know that MilkBones funded the study? Or perhaps, that dogs eating bones was more harmful than .... eating cryptonite, but less harmful than Milkbones?
I'm willing to suspend disbelief a lot, but I bet my rule would stop a lot of nonsense.
Toad
For those paying attention today is the 394th anniversary of the death of Billy Shakespeare.
Posts
