ficials with gifts and favors and in the series of legal restrictions against such gifts and favors. Even with legitimate political contributions, the stockpiling of obligations often underlies the stated purpose of supporting a favorite candi- date. One look at the lists of companies and organizations that contribute to the campaigns of both major candidates in important elections gives evidence of such motives. A skeptic, requiring direct evidence of the quid pro quo expected by political contributors, might look to the remarkably bald-faced admission by businessman Roger Tamraz at congressional hearings on campaign finance re- form. When asked if he felt he received a good return on his contribution of $300,000, he smiled and replied, "I think next time, I'll give $600,000." Honesty of this sort is rare in politics. For the most part, the givers and takers
Noakes also said to me about one Olympic training regimen: "This [approach] could be totally wrong, but it's a hypothesis worth disproving." It's important to look for hypotheses worth disproving. Science starts with educated (read: wild-ass) guesses. Then it's all trial and error. Sometimes you predict correctly from the outset. More often, you make mistakes and stumble across unexpected ndings, which lead to new questions. If you want to sit on the sidelines and play full-time skeptic, suspending action until a scienti c consensus is reached, that's your choice. Just realize that science is, alas, often as political as a dinner party with die- hard Democrats and Republicans. Consensus comes late at best. Don't use skepticism as a thinly veiled excuse for inaction or remaining in your comfort zone. Be skeptical, but for the right reason: because you're looking for the most promising option to test in real life. Be proactively skeptical, not defensively skeptical.
annaabi.ee 
