The word: Threatiness
by KrauzeHello and good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about a word, and that word is "threatiness". Some of you may know the word truthiness, which is when people appeal to emotion and instinct, as opposed to reason and intellect. Likewise, threatiness is when you perceive something to be a threat, without having to justify this by evidence and arguments. As an example of someone who truly gets the meaning of the word, I'd like to point to Pat Shipman, writing in American Scientist:
These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me, convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position.
Now, some of you anti-science people out there might respond, "Wait, what is the evidence that scientists are being stalked by ID supporters? Shouldn't Pat Shipman rather be concerned about people who inflict actual, physical harm on scientists? Such as animal rights terrorists?"
This just shows that you haven't understood anything at all. The threatiness of intelligent design is clearly so great that Pat Shipman can feel it even without having thought about it. She gets it.
Another one of the many it-getters is Richard Dawkins:
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. It is worse than galling. It threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect creationism or 'intelligent design theory' (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
Quote-mining. Now there's a threat to science if I ever saw one! Need I mention how many young students have already given up a career in science because of concerns over being quote-mined, just this year? Some of you might respond, "Yeah, why don't you?" Well, it's exactly collaborators like you who're being enlisted on the side of the forces of darkness. I believe that should clear it up.
And that concludes our program for tonight. Until next time, good night and fare well.
March 4th, 2006 at 9:18 am |
A source tells me that Harvard has decided to abandon its “Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative.” Too many scientists are worried that this initiative would have led to an onslaught of quote-mining. Another lab shut down by the quote-miners!
Threatiness. LOL
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2006 @ 9:18 am
March 4th, 2006 at 12:00 pm |
I just called Colbert and he wanted me to let you know that ID has swallowed 18 condoms full of threat and it's headed across the border!
He also told me that sometimes it takes a crazy person to see a threat and that, if so, Richard Dawkins is a freaking lunatic.
Comment by macht — March 4, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pm |
You know, part of the whole perceived "threat" regarding ID is its association (in the minds of those who feel threatened) with Creationism. But, Creationism is no "threat" to science, if Creationism is scientific, and especially if Creationism is true. If Creationism is not scientific, then one cannot scientifically invalidate it (contrary to multitudes of claims by atheists and evolutionists that it has been scientifically invalidated). If Creationism is scientific, and true, then the only thing that would be "threatened" by it is not science, but an intellectual crutch for an atheistic, unbelieving world-view: namely, full-fledged Evolutionism.
Far from Creationism having been debunked or invalidated, I've found the evidence to support it in the extreme, and the evidence to be against Evolution. Of course, that being the case, the evidence exudes "threatiness" to most scientists. Which is probably a large part of why most scientists don't want to allow schools to talk about that evidence - it's kind of like cooties.
Comment by Douglas — March 4, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 12:21 pm |
Wow. It's clear just how rational and scientific the basis for opposition to ID is.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 4, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pm |
Hi Matthew,
"It's clear just how rational and scientific the basis for opposition to ID is."
It looks like you've been taking a sneak peek at tomorrow's word: Scienticific.
Comment by Krauze — March 4, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 8:57 pm |
Krauze,
Instant Classic. Nuff said.
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 10:46 pm |
Krauze,
May I suggest a positive discussion / argument?
How about a posting on “Science in a Post-Acceptance-of-ID World?“ What are the differences you would expect to see?
Comment by Freelurker — March 6, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 8:29 am |
Hi Freelurker,
"How about a posting on 'Science in a Post-Acceptance-of-ID World?' What are the differences you would expect to see?"
I wouldn't know what to write in such a post. In a Post-Acceptance-of-ID World, some researchers will be dealing with some questions that aren't dealt with today, but I don't think the nature of science itself will change much.
Comment by Krauze — March 7, 2006 @ 8:29 am