Korbel,
Scientific debates between non-scientific belligerents
on escort review boards are counter-productive, not to say risible.
It's a bit like watching midget wrestlers play chess on a dissection table.
No one plays, no one wrestles, and no one dissects. Everyone's just
being a midget.
Name-dropping and quoting articles appeal only to authority
fallacy if posters are unable or unwilling to produce validation.
Alternatively, the notions of "risk" (what if? what if not?) and "cost"
(how much if we do? how much if we don't?) broaden the scope of
the discussion in a way that it allows it to take place outside the
realm of scientific debate. It also welcomes non-scientific posters
to participate in a productive fashion.
When in doubt, the best decision is sometimes the one we don't make.
We therefore accept the risk so to spare ourselves the cost.
Conversely, it doesn't pay to accept the risk if countermeasures used
to mitigate the risk prove to be cost-effective and a cost avoidance.
Discuss...
