HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 12, 2006 This is a continuation of my look at John Waters and his silly attack on humanism, transhumanism, science, skepticism and atheism; the first part is here. I don't mind attack articles or critical articles. Nor, as anyone who has engaged me knows, do I mind giving lengthy and detailed explanations for my views and for belief systems and philosophies which I support. John, however, while writing rather well at times, and while having interesting things to say, debates much like an eight year old child. For example, he will hurl insults, and then cry foul when they are returned in kind. He will pose questions, and then drop that line of reasoning when his query is answered honestly along with further follow up questions, and, will then complain that the discussion has become muddled in personal attacks. He frequently attacks science. Perhaps he doesn't realize he does it? Perhaps he doesn't mean to do it; perhaps he really respects both science and the folk who engage in scientific research. His writings tell a different tale, however. John engages in this attack about as often as he declares that he does nothing of the sort, which is why I focus on this issue in this article. Many people are distrustful of science, especially in the USA. Waters claims to be a different sort, however. He claims to be a researcher himself and he seems to desperately wants that type of recognition. It has long been my view that John dislikes humanism and transhumanism mainly because those schools of thought rely, when possible, on the factual and the rational, neither of which John's “research” approaches. Here are some examples of John's views in this regard: The God-Idea of Christ is a forgiving Idea. Forgiveness, mercy, and kindness are ideas that are taught about Christ. Before Christ the Idea of God was a Man of War. Other cultures promote some different Idea of God. In arguing against the Idea of God, the secular humanists dig a hole. Nature abhors a vacuum and so something rushes in to fill the hole of secular humanism. This can make a secular humanist very callous. I encountered quite a few of these persons when I was a student of biology. Over the years this unkindness drove me further and further away from science. Now I try to see from both sides, and get to the bottom of the disconnect between the genius of science and the genius of ethics. Basically, I found in school that many students simply had no training in putting themselves in the position of the other fellow. That is to say, for example, how it would feel to be cut in half for some doctor could get his PhD degree or write some scientific article and thereby get more respect from his peers. I recall decades ago reading about a certain scientist who was very curious about wasps and so he cut off their abdomens to see what they would do. No, this wasn't a mean kid with a razor blade. This was a professional scientist! If you want, you can find similar experiments going on with more human-like critters in professional laboratories. There was just no empathy in those guys. So does that make secular humanists "the good guys" like Fred Smith claims? I personally am puzzled. I was puzzled at age twenty and I am still puzzled at age sixty-six. How can humanists so viciously attack the teachings of Christ the way they do? On the other hand, how can the Catholic Church so attack abortion without creating a more kind and merciful society of Christ? Goodness knows, the Catholic Church still has gobs of land and gobs of money. There are lots of homeless men and women who would want to help participate in doing the good work of helping other people and helping themselves both. If one reads this bit carefully, one can see John trying to make several associations in order to attack them; this is essentially an elaborate Straw Man fallacy. First, John claims that all societies create God. Not true, many create gods and some don't create super-beings at all. In the case of God or gods, both systems are supernatural, but the differences are vast. Some gods, for example, have many human failings and attack each other. Actually, the commonalities in terms of story and text are usually fewer than the differences. Religion wasn't always associated with morality. Indeed, many are of the opinion that once those two separate ideas became merged that real evil resulted, but that idea is for a future topic. Some cultures evolved to believe in many spirits for objects in nature. Some evolved to “worship” an adherence to civil society and one's place in it. One branch of Buddhism still practiced today doesn't have any gods per se. Humanism can be thought of as synonymous with religion in a few ways, perhaps analogous to Confucianism in some sense, though it is not a religion in most ways. “No gods” does not imply a moral hole in society, for the evils of man originate from societies with a God, gods, or no god(s). In modern times however, many of the most secular societies have the least social woes: no gang wars/lower crime rates, low rates of teen pregnancy and so forth, right on down the list of social indicators. Second, humanism does not attack the notion of forgiveness. Further, a belief in what John himself calls the “Christ myth” is not required to allow for the concept of forgiveness. In other words, the generally accepted positive nature of that act we call “forgiveness” is in perfect harmony with humanism, and indeed, with many religions and cultures which don't believe in Jesus Christ. Next, John attempts to link his flawed view of humanism with science. Notice how he states that callous secular humanists drove him away from science while he was a biology student. Then he sums up his association by carving a chasm between ethics and humanisticscienceness, and begins his “science researchers are cruel to animals” theme. This is a theme he repeats often and one which resurfaced recently in our abortion debate. His wasp bit is a classic example, as if this research casts a negative gloom on all of science (and by association, the cold, unforgiving, humanists). We don't get the details of this experiment, we are told only that it was conducted by a real scientist. My reply attempted to address this experiment as stated, using humanist ethics as I understand them. I explained to John that wasps have a low mental capacity for biological reasons, in the same range as lobsters. Lobster is boiled alive before being served, yet, John doesn't attack chefs in Maine and Massachusetts, let alone Red Lobster restaurants in Indiana. I did ask John several times if he eats lobster; he hasn't responded. A humanist tries to apply reason to morality. Why is it not immoral to “torture” such a creature, either by boiling water or blade? We must look at the situation from the point of view of the lobster or wasp. Based on everything we know, neither has the ability to really experience pain, merely react to it. I can write a computer program that yells or hisses when I click the mouse, and surely one can program a robot to cry if someone attempts to remove a battery. But, is there any real feeling going on there? To this line of reasoning John might say, “but how can you KNOW?”. While we don't know much of anything with utter certainty, shouldn't we: 1. Be consistent with our morals and 2. Base our morality on what we DO know, while giving the benefit of the doubt in favor of the critters we interact with? If John truly thinks that slicing wasps is immoral, then he should not eat lobster – or chicken, for that matter unless it's organically raised chicken (and perhaps not even then!). As far as not knowing, how do we know that grass doesn't also feel pain when cut? What makes a wasp react while grass doesn't? There is a specific answer, but exploring that angle takes more than John's personal intuition. It takes a specific, scientific, exploration of those physical structures that allow lifeforms to respond to their environment. Specific structures within brains allow for specific experiences and responses. Wasps and lobsters lack these structures and advanced behaviors. So does grass. Another example I've already given to John was the case of the octopus. They act in ways that make them seem quite intelligent, therefore, they are given special privileges in captivity and during research. The fact that octopus might seem physically gross or primitive, or that one may not feel an intuitive connection with the beast as one might with a cat, has no bearing on humanistic morals. They give us evidence, they give us reason to think they have a certain amount of mental capacity and so they are treated accordingly. Grass, wasps and lobster are not afforded such privileges. There is a well laid out foundation of ethics that animal researchers must adhere too. Animal rights activism has helped this foundation err on the side of caution in the creatures favor, actually! Perhaps John should look into it. I will continue to swat the flies in my house instead of carefully taking them outside, and enjoy the occasional lobster. John certainly hasn't shown that science lacks empathy. Actually, the facts would point to the contrary. John can't even show that this particular scientist lacked empathy based on his description of the research. He has shown his dislike for science rather clearly, however. Here is another example: Technology and science have advanced very rapidly during my lifetime, which began in 1939. The invasion of Poland and much "ethnic cleansing" followed. Today in Africa and in other "developing nations" there is "ethnic cleansing" as well. The more advanced the technology, in fact, the more rapid can be the "ethnic cleansing." Sci-tech has advanced exponentially since Archimedes and Pythagoras, but over the world at large, ethics has scarcely advanced at all. John seems to be strongly implying that a rise in science and technology leads to a rise in human vs. human evil. Science and technology also feeds people and keeps them content. In general, in countries where people have easy access to what they need to survive and have enough left over for long term goals and fun, they are much better behaved. Note how John inadvertently provided some evidence of this in that quote by qualifying the cleansing as taking place in “developing countries”. Technology is always a double sided coin. The brutal Dark Ages, when religious thought control fought directly against the advancement of science in the West, is but one example of where the very opposite of John's view is true. John's dislike for science and technology is clear, and a further examination of that passage would divert from this article. Some of those ideas were covered in part 1, namely that we must embrace very advanced technology or perish, and some will be covered in part 3, namely that John is in fact a strong Luddite. Here is one more passage which highlight's John's distaste and distrust of science. This includes the wasp/lobster bit from above again: One last thing. Fred writes that I am "silly" in my kindness to certain small animals like mud dauber wasps. That is just his personal opinion. I also am of the opinion that kindness is something that some scientists don't have much of. Just for a tidbit I read somewhere that Albert Einstein was very unkind to his first wife. More germane to this topic, each scientist has been trained for years to keep himself physically and emotionally isolated from his experimental subjects. This socially reinforced coldness makes it easier for experimental scientists to go about cutting or otherwise torturing animals so as researchers they can gain more social points for producing more academic papers. A kind empathetic person simply can't follow that example, even if he or she has high IQ and high grades in science courses. Furthermore, scientists killing an animal for facts is somewhat different from hungry people killing an animal for food the way the native aborigines did, after saying a prayer thanking the animal for its gift of life to them. After all, the aborigines had to eat animals to survive. Many non-aboriginal people today eat meat and they say a prayer of thanksgiving before they start to dine. There is a kind spirit in many of these people if not in all of them. This kind spirit isn't "silly." Like how about sticking a pin through the thorax of a totally defenseless live butterfly. An empath can't do it. John certainly has the right to act in ways that he deems “kind”. I've also been very kind to plants, getting quite attached actually, knowing that the plant had no ability to feel my affection. What I find silly is the hypocritical nature of John's view on the matter, for although I cannot be sure that John eats lobster, I can be fairly sure that he has killed his fair share of arthropods in his time, as we all have. What I absolutely disagree with, and I claim can be supported with sound scientific evidence, is that those who do not share my kindness to plants or John's affinity for mud wasps are unethical or somehow less empathetic or emotional humans! Note how John states that scientists are cold and unemotional and that is somehow institutionally reinforced as part of normal procedure. As to Einstein, I wasn't aware that he was ever married. What possible bearing can this have on science and the morality of our scientific institutions? Folks of all walks have relationship difficulties. Is this not a clear attempt at character assassination and flawed association? Let me divert for a second and say that I actually side with animal rights activists when it comes to certain animals. For other animals, I'm torn, but for many animals of limited ability, I lose no sleep. It's a complicated topic that requires more than mere intuition to decipher, but, whether we like it or not, animal research has benefited most all of us. Science is a big institution and even if most animal researchers could somehow be shown to be vile sadistic people it would still not cast science (or by John's false association, humanism) into a negative light. Finally, John has stated the fact that science isn't absolute Truth several times, as if this somehow shows humanism is flawed. The tenets of humanism strive for a dogma-free world view and morality. The scientific method is the best method known for gaining knowledge free of baloney, far better than supernatural guessing, therefore, humanism looks to this process to enhance its own view. This is partly why the views of humanism change – this is a feature, not a flaw; it is a “good” thing. In any case, John writes the following many times in various ways as if this is some sort of end-all/be-all argument. The bit I quote here isn't from some super clever thinker or writer, but rather, from the WikiPedia Science portal front page: A science, from the Latin, scire, to know, is a body of knowledge that is constructed via observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and logic for the purpose of explaining and predicting events or behavior. Observation, experimentation and critical reasoning all play crucial roles in the advancement of scientific knowledge. A discipline is widely regarded as a science if its practitioners apply the 'scientific method'. According to falsificationists, this involves the formation of a testable hypothesis, followed by ongoing attempts to refute this hypothesis via critical reasoning, experimentation and observation. A hypothesis that has been rigorously tested under a wide variety of conditions, and which remains unrefuted, is tentatively accepted as a useful approximation to the truth, and attains the status of theory; future observations may yet refute it. Note that the scientific meaning of theory differs significantly from the colloquial meaning. Note also that John's Yogic super powers “theory” doesn't qualify as science – it's plain to me what motivates John's dislikes. What would falsify John's Yogic hypothesis? What evidence do we have that John's idea is correct? What predictions has John's idea made, and, have any of those predictions tested positive? If we are just fish in fish bowls, then science is that which allows us to understand the bowl. Might there be something beyond the bowl? Of course! But swearing on the specific nature of what this “outside area” is all about, while using this same non-existent knowledge to hassle what's already known about the inside of the bowl, does nothing but a disservice to the fish. --- Resources: Part 1 of this article. The WikiPedia Science portal. The tenets of Secular Humanism. Octopuses are highly intelligent, probably the most intelligent of any of the invertebrates, with their intelligence supposedly comparable to that of the average housecat. Maze and problem-solving experiments show that they have both short- and long-term memory, although their short lifespans limit the amount they can ultimately learn. An octopus has a highly complex nervous system, only part of which is localized in its brain. Two-thirds of an octopus's neurons are found in the nerve cords of its arms, which have a remarkable amount of autonomy. Octopus arms show a wide variety of complex reflex actions arising on at least three different levels of the nervous system. Some octopuses, such as the mimic octopus, will move their arms in ways that emulate the movements of other sea creatures. In laboratory experiments, octopuses can be readily trained to distinguish between different shapes and patterns. They are able to open jars after learning from observation. Octopuses have also been observed in what may be described as play; repeatedly releasing bottles or toys into a circular current in their aquariums and then catching them. Octopuses often break out of their aquariums and sometimes into others in search of food. They have even boarded fishing ships and opened holds to eat crabs. In some countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, octopuses are on the list of experimental animals on which surgery may not be performed without anesthesia. About how we typically prepare lobster. Perhaps John's last lobster dish was a hypnotized lobster ;) ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
