Be Nice, Happy, Quiet, Meek
by MikeGene
As the critics attempt to rationalize their angry, steeled toes by wrapping themselves in the Flag of Science, never forget that the same crowd just can't seem to get all that angry by news such as this:
An Oxford college has been firebombed by animal rights campaigners - almost one year after a fightback was launched against intimidation by extremists.
Two incendiary bombs were found in an annexe of Templeton College, forcing the evacuation of dozens of staff and students.
[...]
Last week animal rights activists released a call for action against staff members of the university, along with the disclosure of personal details of 40 people linked to animal testing or the building of the laboratory.
Activists were told that they had "nothing to lose and everything to gain by hitting these targets hard".
You can put bombs in a university, you can put the personal details of researchers on the web while encouraging violence, and you can even terrify scientists to the point that they won't talk about their science in public, and what gets the "pro-science" crowd red in the face?
Creationists, ID proponents, and theistic evolutionists.
When it comes to these groups, the "pro-science" crowd promises to get meaner, angrier, louder, and fiercer. But when it comes to groups that terrorize scientists and impede science, we're still waiting for the "pro-science" crowd to show a little mean, angry, loud, and fierce.
Then again, maybe it's not about "pro-science."
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Usually these guys actually end up putting the animals they're trying to save in even more torturous circumstances. Releasing them in locations where they can't fend for themselves, preventing access for feeding by gluing keyholes, killing them in fires, etc. When pressed, they will claim that these animals are "martyrs for the cause." I, for one, would have concerns with joining any movement that intentionally martyrs those it aims to help. I don't think that's how martyrdom is supposed to work. I could be wrong, though; personally, I've never been a martyr.
Comment by great_ape — March 3, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
That's a very good point. Krauze hit on this one too.
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Because remember, being "pro-science" is not about being for science; it's about speaking out loudly against everything that Mike Gene says you must.
Comment by keiths — March 3, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I see. Just because someone wears the "pro-science" label on their sleeves does not mean they will be outraged by something like this:
Comment by MikeGene — March 3, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
You know, I have secretly sympathized with the issue keiths has repeatedly brought up over this "pro-science" qualm, and I almost (operative word here) agree that it's a little unfair to ask all these "pro-science, pro-reason" people to speak openly against anything that might be "anti-science" or "anti-reason" because there's a lot of stuff in our terrestrial realm that could be arguably considered one or both. You can't ask someone like Dawkins to speak out about everything, but I think the underlying point to Mike's repeated statements is that it is perhaps a bit telling which issues these "pro-science" spokespeople decide to choose. The fact that it is religion - something that has never been shown to be unilaterally detrimental to science - that stirs the ire of these individuals where these other matters (like deliberately interfering with scientific research through threats of violence or other means) do not should give us at least a peek into the mindset of such individuals. This conflict is almost inherently a clash of ideologies, and the fact that it ends up being science vs. religion should tell us that it's not a dispute over physics but metaphysics.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 3, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
March 4th, 2007 at 1:58 am
thechristiancynic wrote:
Hi CC,
Thanks for almost agreeing with me.
It's not just that it's unfair to expect someone like Dawkins to speak out about everything. It's also that Mike arrogates the right to judge who is and who is not "pro-science" according to his own idiosyncratic standards.
Dawkins writes nine books promoting science, speaks out almost daily in defense of science and reason, yet Mike questions his "pro-science" credentials. Why? Because Dawkins hasn't spoken out on Mike's personal hot-button issue, animal rights extremism.
Look around Telic Thoughts and count the number of posts you see objecting to restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Where is Mr. Gene's condemnation of this impediment to scientific research? Are we now entitled to question whether he is really "pro-science"
It's Mike's hypocrisy that is irksome, on issues ranging from armchair psychologizing to propaganda, from credentials to what it means to be "pro-science."
Comment by keiths — March 4, 2007 @ 1:58 am
March 4th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Dawkins writes about what he perceives to be anti-science positions. There is a distinction to be made between one's opinion and reality.
But Mike has not worn the pro-science mantel. That is something reserved for the likes of PZ, Dawkins et al. What Mike is doing is illustrating the hypocrisy of the self-appointed protectors of science who can get hysterical because one imputes teleology to biology but shrink from palpable threats possibly because they come from people nutty enough to back the threats with muscle. Incidentally, we see the same shrinking violet phenomenon from anti-theists who go after Christians because they are safe but withhold their fire from more radical Islamic types. Why risk physical retaliation when a safe target is ever available?
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2007 @ 2:29 am
March 4th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Bradford wrote:
Even if you believe his opinions to be false, how can you construe them as not being pro-science? That's like saying that the Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't really pro-Islam, because he believed Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse and you think he was wrong.
Reserved by whom? There was no investiture ceremony at which PZ Myers and Dawkins donned the "pro-science mantle." They have simply written and spoken in favor of science and reason. Mike has done the same. And given that he seizes every opportunity to argue against positions by claiming they are not scientific, he can hardly wriggle out of the mantle himself.
Who are these shrinking violets you have in mind? Take a look at what PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have written about Islam:
PZ took on Islam just over a week ago:
I quoted Dawkins on Islam in an earlier comment here.
The End of Faith contains an entire chapter entitled "The Problem with Islam," which is scathing in its critique. In it, Harris writes:
Let's put the myth of cowardice to rest, shall we, Bradford?
Comment by keiths — March 4, 2007 @ 7:21 am
March 4th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Dawkins and Myers primary purpose has become attacking religion, not promoting science.
Their interest and career in science, these days, is primarily about providing leverage and ammunition for their true desire — to exterminate religion and anything that might possibly look like religion.
Does anyone actually believe otherwise?
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 4, 2007 @ 8:31 am
March 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Hi keiths,
I don't expect Dawkins to speak out about "everything." But as someone who claims to be the lead drum-banger for science, I do indeed expect him to speak out against a movement that targets and threatens his own colleagues and university because they are building a new science lab. His unwillingness to defend scientists at his own university from very real and immediate threats is telling. He happens to have the loudest, most influential voice from the Oxford community. He could use his web page to defend science against these extremists. He could do many interviews and write op-eds to defend his unversity. Yet he has yet to use his hi-profile influence to condemn the movement and defend his school. He's willing to support the Brights, but has he come out to support Pro-Test?
Is it really an "idiosyncratic standard" to expect self-declared "pro-science" people to defend science when a highly organized movement puts bombs in a university, puts the personal details of researchers on the web while encouraging violence, and terrifies scientists to the point that they won't talk about their science in public? Just what does the animal rights movement have to do to get the "pro-science" crowd to finally become mean, angry, loud, and fierce?
Nowadays, Dawkins' idea of defending "science and reason" is to abandon science and replace it with propaganda.
Dawkins has a carefully crafted public image of being a Defender of Science and Reason and you have bought into it. But some of us don't buy into it. People can see for themselves how Dawkins is so obsessed with his anti-religious crusade. But when he tries to spin this crusade as a pro-science/pro-reason movement, his complete silence and lack of interest about the very public and controversial happenings concerning Oxford and their attempt to build a new science lab makes it clear he is spinning.
BTW, please don't complain about talking about Dawkins again, as I did not bring him up.
I don't publicly posture under the "Pro-Science" flag. TT does not advertise itself as a blog that "defends science." If someone postures as being "pro-science" and "pro-reason" I take them at their word and expect them to be pro-science and pro-reason across the board. What's hard about this?
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2007 @ 9:20 am
March 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Dawkins' rants have nothing to do with science. He is an anti-religious nut who profits quite nicely from his hobby.
Meyers and Dawkins are self-appointed defenders of science. Mike is asking the obvious. Where is the outrage when animal rights activists are the culprits?
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2007 @ 11:15 am
March 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
It's no problem. Next time, try to completely right, and then I'll completely agree.
I just wanted to reiterate as well that I don't get the feeling from this or other entries by MikeGene that this is as much about credentials for being "pro-science" as it is about the content matter that these sorts of people talk about. If someone claims to be a defender of science and spends more time attacking religion than actually defending science (especially when there are matters close to that person which seem perfectly relevant for them to discuss), then we have every right to be skeptical of that person's real intent in making themselves out to be defenders of science and rationality.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 4, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
March 4th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Isn't the silence on this issue by the "pro-science" crowd just more evidence of their utter cowardice ? For all the rhetoric and bluster these people are gutless wonders who are afraid to take on someone who wont simply turn the other cheek or chuckle at their idiocy.
I'm not even remotely surprised. They are bullies and their cowardice and silence in the face of animal rights terrorism is just more evidence of this.
Comment by thesciphishow — March 4, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
March 4th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
"Isn't the silence on this issue by the "pro-science" crowd just more evidence of their utter cowardice ?" ==thesciphishow
I wish that were the only the case. The sadder truth is that there is so much activist-sympathy in academia that it would effectively be making a politically incorrect faux-paux to take an outspoken stand against this sort of nonsense.
Comment by great_ape — March 4, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
March 4th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
great_ape:
Very good. A comment addressing causality. There is a strong political element in all this. Academia is a place that tilts far left of center. Any movement that arouses activist sympathy will isolate itself from the implications of rational discourse. They can threaten to bomb or even target individuals pretty much with impunity- and all for the sake of the greater cause.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
March 5th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Mike wrote:
I wasn't aware that Dawkins had made that claim. Could you supply a quote?
I wrote:
Mike responded:
Mike, that is a ridiculous expectation. By that standard, anyone calling himself "pro-science" would have to speak out in favor of the Tuskegee Experiment, and anyone calling herself "pro-American" would have to blindly take the American side in every international dispute. Even you concede that Dawkins can't speak out about every issue having an impact on science. But what else does "across the board" mean?
We accord the description "pro-science" to plenty of people who don't speak out across the board. Someone who advocates for better science education is pro-science, whether or not she speaks out in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
It's as if you think that by simply using the phrase "pro-science" to describe his foundation, Dawkins is somehow obligated to be more than pro-science.
It's an incoherent position. C'mon, Mike — you're smarter than this.
Comment by keiths — March 5, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Mike said:
keiths said:
All it takes keiths, is a simple and short statement from Dawkins addressing this disturbing issue. That would be an honest thing to do in support of his colleagues who are under very real physical threat.
It is also telling that you do your utmost to defend Dawkins by attacking Mike. Why is that?
Comment by inunison — March 6, 2007 @ 2:09 am
March 6th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Hi Keiths,
I don't agree with your assessment. The labels "˜pro-science' and "˜pro-reason' are simply political and rhetorical postures. The idea is to claim some high ground and imply your opponents, by disagreeing with you, are "˜anti-science' and "˜anti-reason.' Why in the world play with those stacked cards?
Consider the abortion debate. I think it is valid for opponents of pro-lifers to question why the pro-lifer supports capital punishment. I think it is valid for the opponents of pro-choicers to question why the pro-choicer is opposed to school choice. Those who adopt such lofty labels open themselves up to this type of criticism.
Dawkins et al. like to posture as "pro-science" as they make a huge fuss about the threat of creationism. Well, last time I checked, creationists don't bomb universities. Creationists don't gather personal information about evolutionary biologists, post them on the web, and incite violence against these people. Creationists have never used terrorist tactics to intimidate an evolutionary biologist into abandoning his research. And evolutionary biologists don't fear for their personal safety because they want to read a paper on evolution in public. I'm sorry, but someone who wants to be perceived as "pro-science" should be outraged by the tactics of the animal rights extremists and oppose it with at least the same intensity as that which is used against the creationists. If you don't agree, fine. We each make our respective points and we'll see which one resonates, over time, the loudest.
As it is, you are in the position of explaining why Dawkins can get furious about creationists in some dinky little school board in another country, yet betrays his own university and scientific colleagues as he abandons them to terrorists.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Bingo. Just for fun, someone should create the christian version of ALF (ALC - Animal Liberators for Christ) and see how fast Dawkins jumps.
Comment by chunkdz — March 6, 2007 @ 3:24 pm