Comments on: The attack on science continues, part 2

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Your post make several good points. This latest purge is only the latest in a sytematic attempt to completely subvert the appropriate use of science in politics. In this case, they (the Administration) are not only subverting science, but science ethics. What is more, these dismissals are contrary to traditional conservative values. The most recent work by the Bioethics Council was a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. You are correct that we should be scared of this. After all, misusing ethics is even more scandalous than misusing science. (more at http://corpus-callosum.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_corpus-callosum_archive.html#107800423184669560)

By: Beth

Beth — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

You do realize that those quotes are recorded by students as passing comments in a philosophy class, correct? It seems to me, after reading the entire list of “Top 50,” that these are not meant to be biographical philosophic critiques, but witty banter to help a university class be entertaining to students.

He makes criticizes Jesus for his sex life, makes reference to MC Hammer, and tells students they “have to sit there in silence while I spew out this bologna.” Sounds like self-deprecating humor of the best kind. The council could probably use some of his humor.

By: Mark Madsen

Mark Madsen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I’m sure the council could use a good joke now and then, but at the moment what the council seems to really need is a bit more balance on both sides of the hard issues.

Of course, it’s often said that the left has lost its sense of humor, and I may be guilty of that, but do we really need the President getting advice about far-reaching scientific and ethical issues from a guy who tells his students that reading the introductions to books will make you dumber? We’d better hope he doesn’t tell the President that….Bush doesn’t seem to read enough as it is.

By: Beth

Beth — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

But don’t they? The introductions, I mean. They provide you with in a dumbed down version of the important themes in the book you are about to read. They’re like the cheat sheet for what you should come away with on your own. Better to skip the introduction, read the Machiavelli, and discover the subtleties and ironies on your own, without someone who clearly has done his research telling you what you should come away with.

By: Mark Madsen

Mark Madsen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Are you thinking about prefaces?

Introductions are usually, if not always, written by the author of the book. Prefaces are sometimes written by outsides, sometimes by the author.

Introductions are just that — an entry point into the subject matter of the book.

By: david tanner

david tanner — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Mark,
It is obvious that you do not know Dr. Lawler personally, and I am sad for you because of it. You really cannot take anything on that quote page seriously. 99.9998% of those quotes are Lawler’s rephrasing of some philosopher’s inane ideas, something he does very well. The point is that you should read up on Lawler, and by that I mean read Lawler’s writings, not the ill-informed musings of some pundit who it too cowardly to even reveal his/her name on the internet. (no one in particular, it just seems to be the trendy thing to do) If you were to read Lawler’s writings, you might find that he is deeply concerned with the serious issues that face the bioethics council and that his appointment was in fact a good thing. The fact is that we (humans, even scientists) do not know the extent to which we will be able to alter our very natures through biotechnological advances, and what consequences such alterations might have in the long run. I know this sounds paranoid but it really is true. Given this realization, we need voices of moderation able to speak out against blindly toying with out nature when that is what seems to be what is happening. The idea is not manifested in a Luddite opposition to biotechnology, but in placing value on restraint and patience so that we can have a chance to discover what our nature is and how we are able to affect it, negatively or positively. Anyway, back to the original point… it really is useless to point out these quotes and attribute them to Dr. Lawler’s ideology. They are good fun though aren’t they?
best wishes,
-david

By: david

david — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Wow, i said this: “that is what seems to be what is happening.” sorry about that.
-david

By: Mark Madsen

Mark Madsen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Yeah, you’re right, it’s ultimately useless to point out these quotes. They’re fun, but they’re not really the point. If Lawler is really going to bring balance to the bioethics committee, that’s great.

I have to say that I’m not wildly optimistic about the panel’s chances, however — the pattern within the Administration concerning listening to experts (of any kind, whether scientists, philosophers, or economists) isn’t good. That’s really the point, and to a large extent focusing on Lawler’s outrageous quotes does obscure that fact.

By: Mark Madsen

Mark Madsen — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

And as for “blindly toying with nature,” I’d like to say that it cuts both ways. When we decide that we don’t understand the science behind ecosystems well enough to predict the impact on species, so we don’t “know” that damage will be done and proceed to clearcut, aren’t we “blindly toying with nature”?

When we say we don’t understand the science behind climate change well enough to warrant taking even minor steps towards curbing CO2 emissions, despite evidence which shows that *at least* we understand that emission levels aren’t helping, aren’t we blindly toying with nature?

The simple fact is that we’re toying with nature every day, and to say that we aren’t interested in having the best science involved when we do the toying is foolhardy. Science isn’t perfect — far from it — but centuries of uninformed action have also demonstrated what happens when you *don’t* listen to scientific results and plunge ahead anyway.

By: doubled

doubled — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

http://horrigangang.com/wwwboard/messages/7820.htm condemedlockingprotect