Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 01:14:40 -0600 From: dnrock@rock.com Subject: The Beneficial 18 The Beneficial by: dnrock(dnrock@rock.com) 18: Only a Fool Underestimates His Opposition Just as the storm of bull shit was settling down, two things happened that burned Tom's butt. First, Tom found himself picketed on campus. That in itself was not all that serious but when the picketers began getting pushy and trying to link him with support for abortion on demand; with signs calling him a baby killer and the like, he figured it had gone far enough. Campus security identified some of these people as the same ones who were protesting on the "animal rights" side and they suspected were behind some recent laboratory vandalism on campus. Tom began to formulate a plan. Second, a right wing Republican Congressman, known for his outspoken opposition to stem cell research and strong anti abortion position, invited him to come before his committee looking at cloning. Tom wondered if the two things were some how connected. He talked to Carl for his political prospective and made up his mind. He called the committee back declining their kind invitation, knowing they would issue a public invitation which he would reject. He called Lloyd with strict instruction on returning home. He wanted to keep Eddy and boys away but realized they would not stand for it. Tom went to the front bedroom and scanned the seen. Sure enough there were already two different TV remote crews parked a block or two away. Then he very carefully scanned the park across the road. He was not sure if he saw anything suspicious or not. What he needed to do was create some kind of diversion. Someone had obviously tipped off the media about this whole thing with the committee. "Well two can play this game," Tom thought. "That's right Chief, a little diversion if and only if your machine is not doing something more important at the moment." "No problem Tom, just get ready and please don't speed. Good luck." That arranged, Tom organized and as soon as he could hear the chopper over head he headed out the back way. Parked at the LRT and took the train to the newspaper office. Since the paper is a morning daily, the only way to scoop the electronic media is to get this on their web site. (Blogging had not yet taken off to any great extent as yet.) Tom allowed himself to be interviewed by one of the staff reporters and composed a statement/press release. "I have declined the Congressman's kind invitation because I am not a spokes person for any point of view. All I have to say on the subject has been said in my recent article and essay." This would be put out in the form of a press release ASAP. Tom had no intention of getting into any kind of interactive scrum with the media. Well, not at this point in his response plan. The reporter will put her story out over the wire in time for the morning editions. "The congressman contends you have important points to bring forward and that his committee wants the opportunity to ask questions and fully understand your views." "I do not wish to debate an issue on which I am only a reporter or reviewer and explainer of someone else's science. My philosophical views are completely covered in my essay and I have nothing more to say on the subject. Any reasonably well educated person should be able to understand what I have written." "People are saying that you advocate unrestricted application of cloning technology to humans and unrestricted access to abortion on demand." "People say lots of things, but just because they say somethings does not make it correct or accurate. I avocet for no cause. I do promote the application of the scientific method and deductive reasoning to questions of science and for providing our children with the best and widest ranging education possible. I do not tell people what to think, I am guilty of showing them how to go about it. Obviously with less success than I had hoped." "Then you are saying, those including the Congressman, that claim you advocate for or promote positions, like unrestricted access to cloning technology have misunderstood you?" "No they have not misunderstood, they are out right liars. This is not a matter of interpretation or spin. I have no idea who they are quoting. In the past week many statements, views and opinions have been attributed to me. None of which can be found in anything I have spoken or written, including a few opinion columns published on the editorial pages of this newspaper. This isn't a matter of taking something out of context and misconstruing it, which is an old political trick. This is a direct application of the new political trick, spin a lie and see if any of it sticks. It is simply propaganda." "Are you accusing the Congressman of lying?" "If he or anyone else, knowingly made a patently false statement about me or my writing, yes? If he unknowingly made a false statement, his constituents should find him a new job, he is not doing the one he was elected to do." The interview broke off for a brief time. Lloyd called Tom's cell to tell him the news on that end. The reporter had to check a wire story that had just come in. When the boys arrived home the cops were already there, the silent alarm had dictated a brake in. Eddy was furious but restrained. The bad boy was trying to plant some raciest and pornographic materials. Everything was now secure, but the cops wouldn't let him at the fellow. The wire story was a quote from the President about Tom's article and essay being dangerous. "Do you think the break in at your home this afternoon and the Presidents comments are linked?" "Not directly. I do not automatically subscribe to conspiracy theories. If you don't like the message and can't attack or discredit it through reason or facts, then attack and discredit the messenger. This is the "modus operandi" of the unimaginative and morally bankrupt." His thoughts were more like the bastards are to stupid and egocentric to challenge him on substance. "It is the action of the arrogant and those who have substituted ego and faith for reason. It is the politics of fear and paranoia, something we have seen way to much of since 9 - 11. In a free society no ideas are dangerous but labeling that which you don't know or don't understand, is. The problem, people such as the congressman and president have with my essay is simple. It calls into question the ethical basis of some past political decisions and I guess they are afraid will influence current political discussions. That is why I wrote it, that is the role of the philosopher in society. I am not Socrates and refuse their cup of hemlock. For him Athens his home city was all. I am not so provincial. The idea is to make decisions for the right reasons. We all know or should, the end can not justify the means, even if the President keeps saying it does. If it is a question of science, it must be sound and follow the rules of scientific deductive reason and logic. If political and can be clearly defined as just that, political, the decision should follow the reason, laws, customs and so on, of the political. Political logic may be inductive but as my essay demonstrates, is usually better served by deductive logic, just like science. If those are dangerous ideas, then we live in a very dangerous world. But the danger is not what these people think it is. I suggest the alternative is even more dangerous to our freedom and democracy. Theocracy and freedom of thought are mutually exclusive, something the framers of the constitution understood over 200 years ago. I submit the danger does not come from logic or analysis, based on all the facts but from faith based dogma, ignorance, half the facts, grandiloquent, pompous rhetoric and fear." "Isn't that all the more reason to speak to the committee?" "It is no reason. Quite the contrary, it is every reason to deny them the opportunity at my expense. The most telling comment was made by the Archbishop of Canterbury 'Taking Anderson's process to its logical conclusion, may produce results on some questions that Anglicans will find troubling.' One can substitute any other dogma laden group for Anglicans. At least the Archbishop was wise enough to recognize the strength of my philosophical position and disagree without attacking the messenger." "Would you expand on that thought?" "Look, everyone is running around attacking me based on what they assume I have said and conclusions they think I have drawn; most haven't even read my article or essay." "Do you mean to say much of the criticism you have received is unfounded?" "Probably because they understand the inherent weakness in their dogma. Anything that challenges the power which flows from that dogma, is a threat. So don't think, shoot from the lip with all mouths blazing. What I have said over and over again, in my writings and interviews, be it science or philosophy, is simply, belief is a good starting point from which to challenge but great care must be taken that belief is not converted to faith; since faith cannot challenge anything, least of all itself. It's all in the essay. Only the faithful will accept a simplistic answer to a complex problem." "Isn't one implication of your essay that any non scientific conclusion or action is illogical?" "No, that is not a foregone conclusion. Non science based conclusions can be and often are logical and defensible. To ban all forms of stem cell research because one theology or another is opposed to it, is neither logical or defensible. To ban it because in the future the science could or might, lead to this or that may sound like a good idea. That is one of those simple answers to complex questions, that leads to moral and ethical dilemmas. To discard potential benefits because of the possibility for inappropriate use is not logical, in fact it is ignorant. I think, the critical thing in all this is being as honest with ourselves as we demand others are honest with us. To take a political decision, based on theology is not in itself wrong. It is only wrong, if we fail to admit the true reason for it." "You are highly critical of what you term as pseudo science, masquerading as the real thing and in doing so, muddying the waters." "Quite true. Two good examples of this are eugenics and creation science and it's so called intelligent design. Neither one is science or scientifically based, although they both claim to be. It is easy to tell, because they both depend on inductive reasoning and not deductive methods. The hypothesis of both fail to meet the critical tests of logic or data, for that matter. Just because you use the terminology of science or any other discipline, does not mean it is what it claims to be." "Getting back to the president's statement. Do you feel this is political interference with Academic Freedom?" "Oh my, no. It is just a simple example of propaganda. It is nothing more than a label, using a loaded and evocative term. If you think about it at all, it is nothing more then an empty quotable phrase. Any idea or suggestion that does not support your position is dangerous. The question is not one of danger but of danger to what or who. Learning to read is dangerous to illiteracy. If that's the best he can do, perhaps his constituents should find him a new job too." "Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in a case involving the censorship of free speech: "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." (Abbs v. United States)" "I have a simple experiment that you can perform, since your deadline is still some hours away. Why not do a word and phrase search of my writings, most of which were published in this newspaper and see if you can find any of those reported quotes, conclusions, or even opinions in that material." "Our research staff has already done that, we couldn't find any." "My point exactly. You the media, are being duped by these politicos into giving them free publicity. The facts are irrelevant, the publicity is everything and if some academic's reputation, who they don't like anyway, is harmed by it... if some other politicos are harmed, all the better. This is little more then an attempted form of censorship. Unfortunately not one covered by the constitution. Half truths, selected or manufactured facts, innuendo and outright false hoods are their stock and trade. The media and internet are their unwitting dupes." "Isn't that being just a bit cynical and labeling them as untruthful?" "No, the facts offer no other rational conclusion. These people are nothing more than intellectual terrorists, who will use every means possible to intimidate anyone who they disagree with or they feel threatens their power. One can correctly or incorrectly label another, that goes on all the time. If someone knowingly attributes falsehoods to another, that is just that, untruthful." "Does this have anything to do with the break-in at your home this afternoon?" "Was Watergate a political crime as well as a criminal act?" "Surely you are not equating an attempted burglary at your home to Watergate?" "The police that responded to the alarm told me, just a few minutes ago, the burglar was attempting to place raciest and pornographic materials in my home, not take anything. How is it, the media knew about the congressman's announcement before it was officially made? There were two TV crews parked in front of my home as I came down here this afternoon, in advance of the Congressman's press release. Why is it the police got a tip that this kind of material was supposedly being kept in my home, at the same time they were apprehending someone trying to place it there? What is the point of attacking my reputation, I'm not standing for any public office? It would seem this is political and breaking and entering is a crime. The same crime as Watergate. Might I remind you of this state's recent political scandals, that involved any number of nefarious tricks to attack my cousin and his extended family." "Are you saying the congressman had something to do with the break and enter or dirty tricks?" "No, I have no evidence to support that and unlike some others, refuse to speculate and make acquisitions without it. To quote my maternal Grandmother, "if the shoe fits ware it" or the old adage, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it must be a duck, does come to mind, however." Tom was choosing his words and analogies with great care. He was more then capable to trading innuendoes with anyone, even those of lesser intellectual acumen. "Perhaps there are those who are afraid of your intellect?" "I am sure of that. These are the same people who expose anti-intellectualism in our society. They try to create a golf between what they portray as ordinary or average people and us academic types. It is another old political and military trick, divide and weaken, to strengthen your incompetent leadership. My problem with that position is in finding that ordinary person, it seems like everyone I meet is extraordinary in some way or another. We must remember the average is just a measure of differences. No differences, no average, only uniformity. When it comes to people, there is no such thing as average. We academics are after all humans with occupations that specialized in some subject like geology or philosophy instead of farming or plumbing." "What if the congressman chooses to use his committees power of summons? He did suggest the Committee did have that power." "Noting but a not so subtle and I might add gutless, threat; a tactic of intimidation, so widely used by the infamous, late senator from Wisconsin. The congressman seems to want a twenty-first century inquisition. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt to deflect attention from the real question, to some topic of little power consequence. As I said, I will not speculate on things I lack expertise in or knowledge about. On legal matters see my attorney, on accounting matters my accountant, on political matters I have no comment. On questions relating to the Philosophy of Science or Geology I'm R.W.A." "R.W.A.," she interrupted? "Ready, Willing, Able. Now if the congressman or anyone else would like to debate me, on some subject or another, perhaps a debating society would arrange it." "Is that a challenge Dr. Anderson?" "No, my challenges like my invitations are made straight out, up front and in person. And I might add, without threats of any kind or degree." "Would you accept a debating challenge?" "I can't give a definitive answer, to many unknowns; however, I have never been intimidated by any physical or intellectual challenge, I felt capable or qualified to answer." Tom would try and suck the congressman in, just as he did Klein and just as he did with Klein; he would chew the bombastic bastard up and spit him and his positions out. He figured the president of the debating society would know just what to do, without him asking this time. "Will you be writing more essays and articles in the future?" "Count on it and as long as my weekly column syndication is published I will be doing that. I am working on several magazine commissions which will be completed in due course. I am a co-author on a paper which will be published in Science in several months and another in Philosophy of Science. For us academics and freelance science writers, it truly is publish or parish." "Carl Rolvogson is your cousin and has performed on stage with your son. Does that indicate you support his bid for reelection in the fall?" "You forgot, I chair his blue ribbon committee on education. No, none of those things indicate anything other then we are family, a relatively close family, I might add. He performs with Eddy because Carl plays well, Eddy sings well and they both have a lot of fun doing it. He asked me to chair the committee because he values my unbiased advice and my academic credentials would attract other qualified and valued advisors. The committee is absolutely non partisan and completely voluntary. I belong to no political party, advocate for no cause or person and how I vote is none of anyone's business. I advocate for no causes and have no axes to grind, except doing good science and cutting firewood." "Do you think that the Governor's opponents are attempting to politicize what you are characterizing as non political relationships." "Perhaps, I choose not to ascribe motives to people I don't know. It is clear that some members of our society view all human interaction as political and for some that may be true. I guess it depends on how inclusive your definition of the term political is. The fact that Carl Rolvogson and I are cousins and we have been friends since small children, is not political. The facts that Carl plays a mean piano and my son likes to sing, are not political. That they chose to perform in public together, in aid of charity, for Eddy was not political, for him it is a civic responsibility, the only means at his personal disposal to make that contribution. You will have to ask Carl what his motives are but I did heard him tell Eddy if his name recognition helps the kids that's a nice side benefit; something about the talent and the profile. Is it good PR on his part? Sure, but remember when they perform together, it is Carl and Eddy, etc. not his office. If other politicians are jealous of that PR, I don't know. Maybe they should take music lessons. Is that a political act? From my philosophical point of view, no. Does the fact that one of them is a professional politician always shade any non privet act, probably. Is the advice given by the committee political? No, but what a politician does with that advice, is. My articles and essays are not political either but that does not mean their contents can not be politicized if used to formulate or influence policy. Misquotations, wild extrapolations, innuendo and out and out lies, about my work isn't political either, it is simple demagogy. It is propaganda of the worst form; I guess the "big lie" is still alive and well in the world." "One more thing. The Congressman and several religious leaders have labeled you an atheist, suggesting you were therefore unfit to make any moral pronouncements?" "That is a curious thing isn't it? Another feeble attempt to marginalize or trivialize your opponent. Remember the first rule of partisan politics is: 'if you don't like the message attack the messenger'. First of all, who are these people? Are they anyone in positions of authority or respect: the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of Athens, Archbishop of Canterbury, Moderator of the United Church and so on? No, they are a collection of mostly discredited "Holier than Thow's", people on the fringe who seek publicity at the expense of the truth or accuracy. They are partly correct, I do not subscribe to their brand of theism. It is an understandable mistake, not willing to subject my intellect to their dogma and not agreeing with them, I can't possible be one of them. In that aspect they are absolutely correct. However, since I have never declared myself one way or the other, it is just another label designed to create or trying to create, a controversy. These false controversies do two things, they get publicity and distract the discussion from the real or important issues. Now that is political and a good example of the media and the public, being sucked in. Secondly, what pronouncements? My pointing out the hypocrisy of their positions or inconsistencies in their dogma. Maybe those are dangerous ideas. May I remind them that it is written: people who live in glass houses or have sin, should not throw stones. As to moral authority, any claim theologians or politicians ever had, has been so badly undermined by their collective actions or inactions, as to render them bankrupt. That discussion while fascinating and worthy of many debating hours, is in reality just another ruse to deflect attention away from the real issues." Tom, as the reader knows, is about as atheistic as it is possible for a person to be. His personal philosophy is a mishmash of existentialism, Kantism, a bit of this and a bit of that, from Plato forward. He is not proud, so he takes sound and workable ideas from wherever he finds them. He has no interest in afterlife and finds no place for an active deity. If the deity exists and is passive, then why bother. He finds no compelling non faith based evidence for the existence of an active deity. He has faith in mankind's intellectual ability and in the brotherhood shared by all humans and all living things. He has shared little of this with his extended family and non of it with the outside world. Tom has no developed philosophical system, for him it is a work in progress. Tom thought about this on his LRT ride, from downtown to his car. When he got home everyone was assembled in the living room, waiting in anticipation. No they were not anticipating his return due to physical absence, having only been away for several hours; they were anticipating his astute and probably scathing comments on the situation. Edith, Garth, Richard and Eddy were actually waiting to find out what action Tom was contemplating. Eddy was more practical, he was hungry and wanted dinner. He is a growing boy and needs his calories. He could not figure out why, just because Tom was late, no one else could eat. When asked, neither could Tom, but then Tom gives Eddy anything he wants, any time he wants it. Over dinner Tom outlined his plan and reminded the boys or students, they were not allowed to talk to anyone about Tom or his work and if anyone they didn't know asked, to notify him immediately. The adults knew the drill. Tom outlined his interview and suggested they watch the 10 pm local news and of course read the morning paper. Tom wanted a full report from the security firm as to how the burglar even got in. He could see the locks were damaged and in the morning would see to it something more substantial would be installed. Tom also wanted to know a lot more about the burglar himself. When the boys returned home the cops already had him in the squad car, along with his materials. They did not get a good look at the person or what he was attempting to place. Edith was quite upset by all this, she felt violated. Tom looked over copies of the statements the boys made to the cops. Tom would call Fred for legal advice; he wondered if the materials were hate literature, if that would get the FBI involved. Perhaps they would produce a little more action. Little happens in the townhouse complex that all your neighbors are not aware of. Con, Jack, the Mendes brothers and their parents, along with others would all be expecting him to say something. Tonight Tom would sleep with Edith. She need comfort not lust. These situations are always upsetting to her, Tom knew the lust would be taken care of in the other rooms.