Bad science used to justify torture: “. . . much of the research cited in okaying these “EITs” came from training that was used to prepare soldiers to have these same techniques being used on them if they were captured. Also, the training was based on situations where the soldiers would be subjected to the techniques only for very limited time periods, in a reduced manner, had given their consent, and were able to stop their participation at any time. No attention was given to the long term psychological impact of extended interrogation.”
7 thoughts on “Insert stock blog post title about being “shocked, shocked” here”
Comments are closed.
Next you’ll tell me that spending a night in a homeless shelter to research a story is different from actually being homeless.Report
Or that watching Soul Man with C. Thomas Howell can’t teach us what it’s like to be black.Report
Or what it’s like to have sex with Rae-Dawn Chong. But I can still imagine it.Report
But think of all the good science we have now…{/madscientist}Report
At least our environmental policy is based on good science…Right?
Seriously, though, this news is not surprising in the least, but no less disturbing for that.Report
Mostly. And what’s neat about EPA’s website is that you can look up a lot of the science yourself.Report
I always find it quite rich that some libertarians, completely untrained in any kind of scientific field, somehow think they can legitimately criticize environmental policy without sounding completely ignorant. Yes, there are problems (especially with the California Air Resources board) but as an atmospheric scientist and a libertarian, you have to wonder if some are not completely aware of how their supposed principled opinions are influenced by crony “capitalism” special interests unwilling to pay for the property damages they are imposing on others.Report