Hilariously ignorant article

[Andrewzeppelin]

"He told the Home Office that alcohol and tobacco were more dangerous than the banned substance cannabis, and horse-riding was more of a risk to your health than ecstasy"

"The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts"


Read more: Yes, scientists do much good. But a country run by these arrogant gods of certainty would truly be hell on earth | Mail Online

[morange]

Why should we listen to science? Where has that ever gotten us anyway?

[gimpster]

That was ridiculous, he grouped hitlers eugenics scientists who tried to get rid of the jew gene too Nutt who is in favor of a benign plant. That writer is a dolt.

[TheKiefChief]

Did he compliment Hitler?

But the Nazis did not invent these things. The only difference between Hitler and previous governments was that he believed, with babyish credulity, in science as the only truth. He allowed scientists freedoms which a civilised government would have checked.

[SuperSaturday]

I loved this comment on the article:

I'm sorry I must have missed where using an emotional plea was a valid form of journalism. Perhaps when you're researching articles you should come up with some facts and figures besides just going with 'your gut'.

When Prof David Nutt was saying horse riding was more dangerous he meant that statistically it's more dangerous. As in, on average more people are hurt horseback riding than taking ecstasy.

Normally do you consider yourself a journalist or a blogger? Judging by articles like "I am sad to move" I'd venture to guess the latter.

- Matt A, Sask, Canada, 04/11/2009 04:10

Read more: Yes, scientists do much good. But a country run by these arrogant gods of certainty would truly be hell on earth | Mail Online