I just returned from two weeks away from email to discover yet another treasure-trove of right wing political flamage (rhymes with "fromage") in my math-fun mailbox. Each time this happens I practically have to restrain myself physically, but I guess I've finally been provoked into making some comment. Stop reading now if you don't want to be bothered. The so-called "politically correct" point of view is not the only point of view that occasionally conveniently construes facts to fit an agenda. There's plenty of evidence of this from other locations in the political universe, e.g. creationism to name an obvious one. I take it as practically axiomatic that "political reasoning" almost always works this way. The purpose is to convince people of the correctness or righteousness of a particular point of view, so it is pretty rare that in doing so the proponent gives adequate consideration to the legitimate concerns of differing points of view. In my book a truly scientific way of proceeding doesn't seek to convince, particularly by bludgeoning, it just seeks to propose and question. If you want to question whether, e.g., there's enough evidence to demonstrate a causal connection between DDT in the environment and egg shells becoming thin, that's great, but starting with the conclusion that there isn't and that there's some kind of vast "lefty" conspiracy to cover it up doesn't seem all that productive, or especially likely. There are legitimate questions about the best course of action when facts support theories less than completely conclusively. This depends on the potential consequences of acting or not acting in some particular way, and even those consequences are usually impossible to predict at all accurately. So does that mean inaction is always best? Probably not. Should DDT not have been banned, or should no action have been taken to reduce CFCs or be taken to reduce emission of greenhouse gasses just because there are multiple interpretations of the existing evidence and not everyone is in complete agreement? I don't think so. Should production of materials that can be fashioned into nuclear weapons be encouraged in a world where human motivation and behavior are as unpredictable as they are, and the stability of any institutions that might safeguard such materials cannot be guaranteed? We all have our opinions. Without detailed knowledge of underlying mechanisms, it is awfully difficult to establish causal connections, but that is what people and all kinds of institutions have to do every day. Without predictive abilities that vastly exceed what is possible for humans, it is impossible to exclude consequences and side effects that may seem unlikely based on a superficial analysis of current temporary conditions. We have to act (or not act) on partial information and on statistical correlations, and on some risk-weighted model of what outcomes may occur. Sometimes it will turn out that people/organizations/countries react to something that turns out to have been based on a theory that is difficult to support later. (I might mention the supposed presence of WMD in a certain middle eastern country as an example). Whether everyone supports such action or not, or whether the action (or inaction) turned out to be appropriate is not the question. What's real is that people and organizations have to put their best foot forward on the basis of partial and frequently faulty information, and in the case of organizations, whoever the de facto leaders are are the ones who get to (or have to) make those decisions. Things get ugly and more complicated when people start selectively using or even fabricating "facts" to fit their agendas. Twas ever thus. Even in math, proof is a matter of convincing fallible people (onesself included) of the correctness of an argument. Luckily this usually doesn't occur by intimidation, name-calling and insult. Flaws in supposed proofs do turn up from time to time, and who is exempt from resorting to trusting the reasoning of others they suppose to be more competent than themselves sometimes, or from making mistakes themselves? Shel