The purpose of this diary is NOT to ask what really happened to the Twin Towers. This question is forbidden on Kos, a proscription I fully respect. What I want to address is the implications for Progressives of the fact that according to an NPR report this morning, and lots of other evidence, it is a question on many people's lips
see http://www.npr.org/...
- including, increasingly, my community college students'.
They wonder less about the tragedy itself, than about whether, in light of recent events, the public can trust its government. They wonder what citizens concerned about this issue can do to insure such trust.
As a consequence of this trend I recently e-mailed The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
see the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/... as well as their website at http://www.ucsusa.org/ for indications of their stature and prestige as an organization committed to applying science in the service of society.
asking for their insights into this particular matter, or for direction to peer-reviewed sources that had reported on it.
Before I tell you their answer, let me indicate why I place such reliance on the peer review process of science. I assume that peer-review is our most reliable guarantor of factual information about physical phenomena. During WWII physicists were able to convince policy makers and wealthy funders that left alone to define their scientific goals and to hold themselves accountable for operating honestly and competently (to the best of their ability), scientists produced more useful weapons and more profitable products than when otherwise constrained. Peer-review, in other words, has been extremely valuable for the rich and powerful. Therefore, we can feel reasonably certain that if some, or even one of the nation's most peer-esteemed scientists should comment on an issue that falls within his/her sphere of expertise, this person will almost certainly not lie, however tempted to do so. S/he would have too much to lose professionally, and powerful interests would suffer substantial loss if they subverted the protections implied by peer-review.
More likely, esteemed scientists wishing to avoid infuriating powerful interests would simply not comment upon a controversial issue. It would then be up the public, if it cared enough, to try to persuade scientists to change their minds. Evaluating "evidence" other than that vetted by peer-review would seem, rationally, to constitute a very last resort for citizens, and only in case scientists simply refused to respond. Of course their refusal to respond would constitute a kind of evidence in its own right.
To some extent (perhaps a small one at this point in time), journalism also enjoys protection from manipulation by powerful interests. This is where the activist process might best begin - with citizens asking journalists to ask scientists to address a public concern that falls within their purview -- such as what really happened to the Twin Towers. If journalists should be reluctant to act as brokers, they could be "assisted" by bloggers. Blogs have proven most effective, of late, at motivating journalism. Some of the blogs in fact already constitute decent journalism.
An example of this sort of process at work (except that is was the Navy not the public who brought science into the picture) was the expose several decades ago of the web of mysterious "facts" created by a couple of writers, not scientists, concerning strange disappearances of small boats and airplanes in the North Atlantic area called the Bermuda Triangle
see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...
When studied by scientists, the mysteries evaporated.. Exposing the writers who made it all up did not damage their incomes one iota. As a high school science teacher for awhile, each year I showed an excellent video about this event to illustrate the importance of peer-review as a source of reliable information.
A more recently publicized example of the power of peer-review was the exposure a few years ago of two scientists' premature claims, first published not in a peer-review journal but in a newspaper, to have discovered a way to achieve nuclear fusion at low temperatures - cold fusion
see http://en.wikipedia.org/....
This would have been a discovery of immeasurable importance to humankind. Consequently, their leaked findings had explosive effect and soon dominated the media. As it turned out, Nature, a prominent peer-review journal found their findings inadequately supported by the evidence they provided. Neither the pair, nor several other teams of scientists were able to replicate their findings. Thus ended the cold fusion dream. Because the scientists had disseminated their premature findings prior to peer-review, it also ended their careers.
The public does not have to rely on circumstantial evidence provided by enthusiastic amateurs, or even by professionals operating outside of the peer-review process. The public, if it wishes, can relentlessly nag those whose findings must have real weight, to weigh in. If they stubbornly refuse to do so, knowledge will be expanded nevertheless: the propositions scientists refuse to address will tend to be reinforced. More to the point, calling upon the peer-review process of science to reinforce the public's right to factual information seems the logical, most effective role of Progressive activism.
The Union of Concerned Scientists response to me was:
"Thank you for your inquiry. UCS does not work on this issue and I do not have any other resources to give you. Sincerely ..."
What I hear them saying, is "Twist our arms."