Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!ucbvax!kontron.UUCP!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need?
Message-ID: <12254914433.42.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14-Nov-86 13:55:33 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12254914433.42.MCGREW
Posted: Fri Nov 14 13:55:33 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Nov-86 00:50:43 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 21
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


I've noticed that many of the opponents of SDI keep talking about how
many "top" scientists have signed petitions denying that SDI is
feasible.  The "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis also had a similar addendum
-- 100 "top" scientists signed it.  (I say "hypothesis" because from
what I've read, the assumptions involved are idealized, and
consistently idealized in a manner that finds for "nuclear winter").

I'm reminded of what happened in the mid-1930s when 100 "top German
physicists" (or so they styled themselves) issued a denunciation of
"Jewish physics", aimed specifically at Einstein and relativity.  As
Einstein said, "It would only have taken one, if I was wrong."

Perhaps this is just characteristic of a collectivized approach to
things common in some circles, but this entire "group denunciation"
and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics --
not science.

Clayton E. Cramer

-------