Watchdogs of Science
by Guts
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Friday, August 25th, 2006 at 7:31 pm and is filed under Animal Rights Extremism, Intelligent Design, Science, The Critics, Threatiness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
August 25th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Now, this is something I would have filed under "Humor".
Comment by Krauze — August 25, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
August 25th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
The message:
TTers are insisting that PT, whose contributors do not hide their identities, and many of whom work actively in fields that are targeted by anti-science activists, paint (or, more accurately, enlarge) a nice target on themselves. (As smokey has pointed out in part, any scientist who works in these areas already does things to deal with, and confront, anti-science terrorists. Much more than…..)
One could argue that this comes with the territory, and they'd be correct. But one would also be correct in pointing out the, um, hypocrisy that is a bunch of bloggers who refuse to assume the same risk that they are demanding of others. Think about it - TTers clamor, from the risk-free haven of closely-guarded anonymity, for action on the parts of PT contributors, action that adds some measure of risk (perhaps small, perhaps not - who knows). Why are not the TTErs willing to assume the same risk (which is less than working scientists encounters in the lab and office)?
Some more of that good ol' PWW ethics, I'm sure. If all of this isn't intended to be humor, it should be.
Comment by Art — August 25, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
August 25th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Pure BS. We have one ( only one) anti-ID activist who disapproves of ALF behavior, under a pseudonym, who has a history of making shite up. We have a plethora of anti-ID commenters , both pseudonyms and real life names, that do nothing but criticize ID even when they were under the safe shelter of anonymity (and in this shelter for years in various discussion forums), and all in the name of "pro-science". While the majority of people harrassing pro-ALF discussion forums are plant liberation activists!
Come to our blog to harrass us and your hypocrisy will be unveiled in more ways than one. This will be even more clear in the comming months. I guarantee it.
Comment by Guts — August 25, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
August 25th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Risk is not the issue. There is more risk involved in driving a motor vehicle. The issue is sincerity. Pro-science is a broad concept that covers more than some local school board- teach pro and contrary evidence positions. But you'd never know it based on the dual approach of the panda crowd.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
August 25th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
No offense, but keep the comments on target. I'm not the typical TT blogger, and this isn't a free-for-all discussion forum. This is my last warning in this thread.
Comment by Guts — August 25, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 2:14 am
"Pure BS. We have one ( only one) anti-ID activist who disapproves of ALF behavior, under a pseudonym, who has a history of making shite up. "
What, exactly, have I made up?
Comment by Smokey — August 26, 2006 @ 2:14 am
August 26th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Krauze, Guts, etc.,
That time you spent clipping your toenails last week? You are aware that you could have better spent that time scouring private snooker clubs for terrorist sleeper cells? Does this mean that you are either "with us or against us"
Comment by Sleena — August 26, 2006 @ 7:45 am
August 26th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Art:
Whoa. Art seems to be saying that the reason the entire "pro-science" blogosphere remains silent about animal rights extremism is because the extremists have intimidated them into silence. If this is true, it clearly demonstrates what a real-world threat to science looks like.
In contrast"¦.
The ID movement has not stopped the construction of any science building that was going to study evolution.
The ID movement has not destroyed any lab and its data.
The ID movement has not forced any evolutionary biologist to abandon his research.
And now we can add "¦The ID movement has not intimidated anyone into remaining silent about its agenda.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2006 @ 8:00 am
August 26th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Guts:
Sure. For six years, "Art" has been harassing ID people (consider, for example, the vindictive grudge he holds against Joy). Yet you provided him with the url to the ALF forum. So what does "Art"do? Does he, the "pro-science" ambassador, go and "enlighten" the animal rights crowd? Nope. Not interested. He comes here to attack us.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2006 @ 8:26 am
August 26th, 2006 at 8:53 am
LOL
TT has amongst themselves a contributor who sympathizes with those who would torch my lab at the drop of a hat. I've commented on this on occasion, and the group of blogmeisters have taken considerable umbrage at my temerity.
Fact is, I've found a blog that is friendly to ecoterrorists and I'm commenting. But because these terrorists cannot be easily used to embarrass (or so TTers would presume) Dawkins, their actions are OK. And defending them is the proper activity for this blog.
Comment by Art — August 26, 2006 @ 8:53 am
August 26th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Oh please. You are not standing on any principle; you are only trolling to cause trouble. Guts supplied the url to the ALF forum. Given your steady six-year (at the least) history of haunting pro-ID forums, why won't you criticize the people on the ALF forum? Why are you arguing with me when you could instead be defending science?
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2006 @ 9:04 am
August 26th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Bradford:
As far as the purported disconnect between risk and sincerity, I disagree. The unwillingness to assume the same sorts of risk one tries to impose on others speaks clearly as to the sincerity (or, more accurately, lack of sincerity) of the bloggers here. As does the fact that the only "threats" the bloggers care about are those that may be used to attack Dawkins. Not only do they not care about other threats, they actually support people who would and do attack (physically) other scientists. That speaks volumes as to the sincerity of the bloggers here.
(In case the ballet of euphemism has gotten too entrancing, Bradford, what I'm saying is that the bloggers here care not one itoa about defending science or scientists. It's all about embarassing Dawkins. Take Dawkins out of the picture and this blog would have not a single entry about ALF and animal rights activists.)
Comment by Art — August 26, 2006 @ 10:18 am
August 26th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Hi Art,
Since you seem to know more about anti-GMO activism than I do, here's a proposition: If you write a post about anti-GMO activism and how it contributes a threat to science, I will post it as a guest post. What do you say?
Comment by Krauze — August 26, 2006 @ 10:23 am
August 26th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Hi Krauze,
The offer is tempting. if you need something in the short term, I cannot accept. If you can wait for several months (after I clear some papers, grants, and a terrifying stack of grading off my desk), then I'd be interested. (The post may be better after a "cooling off period" anyway.)
Comment by Art — August 26, 2006 @ 10:35 am
August 26th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Art is again confused. Art, we are not the ones who posture as "pro-science" or "defenders of science." Those are the labels you and your ilk have chosen for rhetorical reasons. And now you can see the choice came with a price. It's easy to posture as "pro-science" in order to hide anti-religious views or bash creationists, right? But what happens when the "pro-science" ambassador faces a real threat to science? A threat that not only has a real-world track record of harming science, but was hatched from within academia itself? They go limp. Why is Art, for example, so reluctant to join the ALF forum and debate them for six years? Every comment he makes to TT could have been a critical comment on the ALF forum. Then again, does Art have it in him to make critical comments about the animal rights movement?
As for Dawkins, Art has a history of getting upset when people legitimately critique Dawkins' muddled thinking (or bigotry). So it is no surprise that Art would turn his hero into a victim. But why is Dawkins entitled to no criticism? As the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, the author of many popular books, and the producer of an anti-religious television show, it is my sincere opinion that Dawkins is doing great harm to the public perception of science, as he masquerades his anti-religious agenda with "pro-science" terminology. The animal rights issue is a perfect way to illustrate that Dawkins is not speaking "for science" and help to rescue the public perception of science from his irresponsible actions and inactions. You, however, seem more interested in rescuing Dawkins from criticism on an obscure blog.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2006 @ 10:56 am
August 26th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Hi Art,
Sure, if you think science can survive while you finish some office work, I don't mind getting your post after several months.
Comment by Krauze — August 26, 2006 @ 11:20 am
August 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Mike:
LOL:
From the same comment:
Someone here is confused, alrighty.
Aside to Guts - catch a wave, dude. Yer wound up way too tight.
Aside to Krauze - obviously, moonlighting as a off-hours security guard is going to make some demands on my time. But hopefully I can use the grace period to dig up some things that I never bothered to file. Feel free to "remind" me, ever so gently, from time to time.
The obligatory vague allusion - this entire episode brings to mind the Cadets' 2005 show. I feel like I'm peering into that door, fer sure.
Comment by Art — August 26, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
You are still confused, Art. You missed the word "posture." Yes, I happen to love science and yes, I am truly concerned when more and more people equate science with anti-religion (thanks to Dawkins et al.), but I do not nevertheless define my cyber-existence as some type of Pro-Science Advocate or argue under the "Defender of Science" flag. For example, according to the PT self-description, "The patrons gather to"¦.defend the integrity of both science and science education." No such self-description exists here. In other words, I do not wear the "pro-science" label on my sleeves for rhetorical/political purposes. It is not some rallying cry. Is that distinction too subtle for you?
Richard Dawkins is a very public figure who defines science for many people in the street. As the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, the author of many popular books, and the producer of an anti-religious television show, why does it bother you when people legitimately criticize Dawkins? After you, we can't rely on you to raise the legitimate criticisms, now can we? So where are they supposed to come from?
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Hi Art,
"Feel free to "remind" me, ever so gently, from time to time."
Why would you need to be reminded? Aren't these people who would torch your lab at the drop of a hat?
Comment by Krauze — August 26, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Art:
LOL right back at you, Art. Did you learn this trick from Dick Cheney? I won't eat or grow genetically modified garbage disguised as food, so I must be a Terrorist Sympathizer. Oooohhh, scary!
If your 'lab' gets torched it won't be this little old lady doing the dirty deed. If it makes you feel safe to attack me instead of real lab-torchers, great. It doesn't do much to enhance your macho image, though. In the meantime, keep your not-clever pharma-industrial transgenes off my land and out of my food.
Comment by Joy — August 26, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Mike Gene writes:
The fact that the PTers see themselves as the self-appointed defenders of science speaks volumes in itself. Who asked them to take on this role anyway? For that matter, which view of science do they think needs to be defended and why? (that's rhetorical…we already know the answer). It requires a tremendous amount of intellectual arrogance to proclaim oneself the "defender of scientific truth". Or to proclaim that anyone who disagrees with your view is somehow "anti" science. Yet that is what we see all the time with the PT crowd. Call it what is: intellectual arrogance of the worst kind. It does nothing to advance science or knowledge, but does a lot to make them all feel good about themselves. Whoopity doo!!
Comment by DonaldM — August 26, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Joy, do you actually have a point about Cheney, or is this a trick you learned from Lenin and/or Stalin? Cheney won't support the forced socialization of American society, so he must be an evil Evil Sympathizer. Oooohhh, irrational!
Comment by Ilion — August 26, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
You know, there are certain persons, who for reasons of intellect and/or personality and/or mind-set and/or mode-of-thinking would feel ever so much more at home on the "other side."
Comment by Ilion — August 26, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
I don't clip my toenails, I bite em off.
Comment by Guts — August 26, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
August 26th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
[...reminds self not to read Guts-comments while drinking liquids...]
Comment by Joy — August 26, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
August 27th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Guts, I loved the cartoon so much I would love to see it as a regular feature. Great attention to detail, has a message, the expression in the last frame is priceless, and it's pretty freakin funny to boot!
So whaddya say, a weekly feature?! God knows there's enough material to keep it going.
Think about it…
Comment by chunkdz — August 27, 2006 @ 12:56 am