London: A few weeks ago, a friend involved in researching possible cancer treatment asked me to join a panel where he was presenting a paper on his findings. The in-house peer review panel was the first feedback forum for him. After what I thought was a decent presentation, I watched as colleagues from his field started to tear apart some of this research arguments. Scientists have a simple rule that dictates that one should go for the most reasonable explanation. This is to say, for example; if I left a bowl of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly my yard was visited by fairies. Political scientist mark the ‘scientist’ not ‘analysists’ call this concept, least plausible hypothesis.
Stories of sleaze are almost suffocating us; spin masters have worked overtime to distract the public from the issue of the day. You can almost count it a win, by the mere fact; somehow there is a character in the crosshairs. Well, for anything substantive to happen to them is another issue altogether.