Comments on: Dr. Harriet Hall on the rise of the anti-scientific left

By: Tracy

Tracy — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:31:24 +0000

Please do not lump all animal rights activists together. This does a disservice to this community and the author who is not applying her critical thinking skills. Animal “rights” activist and vegans present a diverse and engaged community with many different and evolving opinions.

Animal “rights” is in fact based on embracing the scientific conclusions of evolution, neurobiology and animal ethology. Many of us are staunchly pro-science. Indeed, many animal activists welcome lab-grown meat as an alternative to killing trillions of sentient beings (if one includes land, air and ocean animals). Further, many animal rights theorists reject arguments based on perceived ideas of what is “natural.”

The same could be said for lumping together all environmental activists.

Also, like a commentator above, I completely disagree with comparing banning plastic bags and banning abortion as equally outrageous ideals.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:06:44 +0000

Thanks Barbara for your insightful response. I suspect that – aside from U.S. politics – you and Dr. Hall may be making a similar key observation, which is that pseudo science is indeed alive and well, whether you’re left/liberal/progressive or right/conservative. As she writes: “Anti-science attitudes should be discouraged wherever they are found.”

LikeLike

By: Barbara Keddy

Barbara Keddy — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:16:40 +0000

One of the difficulties I had with Dr. Hall’s blog is that as Canadians there is a different connotation of the political system (parties) than the US.

Her lack of (admitted) understanding and personal attempt to avoid politics was peculiar to me and I became frustrated since science and politics go hand in hand.

A liberal in the US can mean any number of things and certainly does not usually mean ‘left’. A liberal in Canada is not considered ‘left’ as we have a party that represents the left (NDP). However, admittedly, none of these categories are as clear cut as one might suppose.

To call oneself a socialist in Canada does not raise eyebrows, yet to even admit to being a liberal in the US can have devastating effects. For Dr. Hall to say that science should not be political is extremely naïve, as it always has been. I agree that it should not be but it is what it is!

What the conservative government in Canada has done to science in the past decade is shameful. SCIENCE IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, that is, what is funded, how scientists are respected (or not), who does the funding of projects etc..

I am a socialist, not a fan of CAM, a social scientist, embrace science-based medicine and would take a balanced view of environmental issues. Needless to say gender and race are extremely important (variables) for me in any kinds of research.

I don’t think I am an anomaly and I am definitely ‘left’. In spite of this, I would happily read the book and other works of Dr. Hall herself as I have already mentioned pseudo-science is alive and well (and counter-productive). This return to what is ‘natural’ crosses party lines.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:11:51 +0000

Hello Ena – sounds like you’ve had firsthand experience with the book’s authors directly, with little satisfaction. And considering that dwelling on an article whose author (Dr. Hall) cites “these two as credible” is a waste of your time, you’ve likely wasted as much time as you’d ever want to on this post.

LikeLike

By: Ena Valikov DVM

Ena Valikov DVM — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:28:32 +0000

“Berezow and Campbell call for clear, unbiased thinking about public policies based on good scientific evidence rather than ideology-influenced distortions of science. They call for:

more basic research
more transparency
better communication of science to the public
more scientific rigor
pursuit of excellence.
They offer practical proposals for improvement. Above all, they demand that we quit politicizing science. How could anyone disagree with that?”

Its very easy to disagree with people who are hypocrites in action and don’t actually mean a thing they write. Having attempted to have a polite conversation with Hank, who would rather stick people into ill- fitting fictional categories than actually debate science he just doesn’t get (or perhaps alternately finds politically/ economically unpalatable); and having just recently engaged on the subject of GMOs with Alex, who in the course of the online conversation failed to demonstrate any evidence of comprehension of the science itself– I find it a waste of my time to dwell on an article whose author cites these two as credible authorities. And speaking broadly I find categorizing people ( authoritarian / anti-science, etc etc etc) to be as artificial and worthless as any exercise in generalizing and trying to squeeze complex multifaceted individuals into any ill-fitting box.

Sorry Carolyn.

LikeLike

By: Annonymous

Annonymous — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:04:44 +0000

I posted links to 2 books I thought related to the post (both of which I’ve read), address similar issues, skewer simar targets, but adopted a tone I prefer.

After reading the reviews I also linked to of the book I felt the tone of the post and the post were not to my tastes. I was sincere in my hope people would post additional recommendations as these are topics of interest to me. I do not feel that I was insulting to anyone and genuinely wasn’t sure why my posting this time this way had been an issue but believe sincerely that blog owners should create the environment yet consider healthiest for their blog. And, anonymous commenting can grow toxic so I can respect that. I think it’s important to be respectful in comments to others regardless of one’s degree of anonymity.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:06:05 +0000

Thanks Annie – cats, of course, can kill all those birds without any technology whatsoever . . .

LikeLike

By: Annie

Annie — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:10:17 +0000

Dear Miss Carolyn;
I too will be making my way back here- Perhaps I just need a bit more caffeine before my brain really kicks in.

Right now I cannot even get past all the double standards- (not only male vs female). But I do know I would pay good money to see a cat in a turbine – chasing the bird of course…

LikeLike

By: Annie

Annie — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:04:25 +0000

Dear Anonymous/Annonymous;
Thank you for being so obtuse.
I mean it sincerely, as it is people of your ilk that somehow make me feel real good about myself.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:32:31 +0000

Hi Neal – as you know, these were not my words, but those of Dr. Harriet Hall who wrote this guest post. I chose to run her original piece as is – sorry if you took offense at what she said.

LikeLike

By: Neal Schock

Neal Schock — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:08:55 +0000

This is a post I will read again when time permits…but I just must protest the comparison of “banning abortion” to “banning plastic bags”. It is a shocking and appalling statement, and I cannot imagine anyone, progressive or conservative, who would agree with this comparison. Carolyn, I have followed your writing for quite a long time, and this seems not in keeping with your balanced and insightful words.

LikeLike