Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I was reminded in the last diary, several times, to not be as silly to suggest such a thing.

So I won't, and just stick to pointing out BS.

But I don't think you are silly.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Thu Nov 18th, 2010 at 12:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are we to assume, for the purposes of science, that Munich Re is not in the profit optimisation business, that their PR function is not primarily tasked with supporting that objective, and that the science they fund is not primarily geared to supporting that objective even if it is objective within it's own terms of reference?  (it is, for instance, important that Munich Re can accurately assess relative risks when writing insurance and managing risk exposure).

Is it not the job of PR functions to selective promote favourable data?  Is it not reasonable to assume, a priori, that that is what Munich Re does - even if we do not have evidence of specific such behaviour by specific management officials at specific times?

The argument that business actionable data has a lower standard of proof that scientific publications  can also be turned on its head: The analysis of how businesses operate does not require scientific standards of proof for every specific action they engage in.  Normal economic models/theories for business behaviour can be applied a priori in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Nov 19th, 2010 at 03:56:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series