North Western Winds

Contemplating it all from the great Pacific Northwest

Close the Windows on Eugenics

leave a comment »

Here is another reason to stay away from Windows software – as if you
needed another. This came out after Warren Buffett anounced he would
give Bill Gates’ charity a mountain of money:

Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International,
issued a statement pointing out Buffett’s track record of supporting
pro-abortion organizations and related projects in the developing world.

He reported that Buffett’s foundation also gave a grant to the U.S.-
based Center for Reproductive Rights, which fought bans on partial-
birth abortion, and Catholics for a Free Choice.

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have also given millions of
dollars to organizations pushing abortion around the world,” Fr.
Euteneuer reported.

I have no idea why Gates and Buffett support the organizations
they do, but I suspect it might be something along these lines:

Nature is astonishingly cruel. Science, by contrast, has the power of mercy. One can only be dazzled by the inventiveness and compassion of
the scientists involved in this [embryonic] screening breakthrough…
Admittedly genetic screening means that embryos carrying disabilities
and diseases will be discarded. It is a stretch, however, to use the
word destroyed, or even killed, as the test is done on embryos that
are only three days old. And what is appealing about this early
screening is that it offers the hope that, in the foreseeable future,
abortion and late abortion will be less frequently used in dealing
with serious defects and disabilities.

It will be easier and better in every way to get rid of a tiny
collection of cells. This is indeed playing God, as all the usual
campaigners were quick to point out last week. But what on earth is
wrong with humans playing God? I am all for it, especially as God
doesn’t seem to be doing it.

This sort of muddle headed bafflegab is such a sickly sweet confection that it seems brains are not an adequate defense against it. Minette Martin, who wrote this in the Times UK, seems to think that an abortion performed on a embryo three days old is somehow – she does not explain how – not an abortion. She neglects to say at what point an abortion is in fact an abortion, or how she arrived at her conclusions. She goes on to disparage disabled people who point out that they are quite happy to be alive, even if the nature of
their existence troubles Martin’s conscience. Martin, for her part,
tries to escape her disabled critics by saying that she thinks no less of them but
if they were less than three days old, she’d flush them down the toilet and never think twice about it.

So much for intellect uber alles. The bedrock of Martin’s argument
lies in the claim about the non human nature of the three day old
embryo, but this is not a claim built on science. Martin, if she was
truly a critical thinker, would know this.

This essay on Critical Thinking today observes that:

… we teach science as a collection of facts and theories about a
certain category of phenomena, rather than as a set of principles for
understanding the world. A course in “Science, Pseudoscience, and
Anti-science” would stimulate broader critical thought than the
typical Chemistry 101 class. But the problem is deeper than this.
Full-blown critical thinking is not coterminous with good scientific
thinking. Critical thought is the principles of scientific thought
projected to the far reaches of everyday life, with all the attendant
demands and complications. This expansive generalization of the
scientific method is hardly spontaneous or self-evident for most
people. Just as learning the truth about Santa does not shatter the
typical child’s credulous worldview, learning the principles of
science can easily fail to fully penetrate the larger vision of
science students-and indeed, of scientists. By themselves, science
classrooms are poor competition for the powerful obstacles to highly
developed critical thinking that reside in human social life and in
the wiring of the human brain.

It is naive to expect social-science education, natural-science
education, or education in general-at least in their present forms-to
elevate critical thinking to something more than a pedagogical
fashion that everyone applauds but few conceptualize very deeply.
This leaves the skeptical community. We identify ourselves as
champions of science and reason. But this is a broad mandate. We
should avoid concentrating our skepticism too narrowly on the realms of superstition, pseudoscience, and the supernatural-for the ultimate challenge to a critical thinker is posed not by weird things but by insidiously mundane ones. If we hope to realize the promise of critical thought, it is important that skeptics affirm a
multidimensional definition of critical thinking — reasoning skills,
skeptical worldview, values of a principled juror — that exempts no
aspect of social life.

This is all well and good. I endorse a good deal of what Howard
Gabennesch has written here, and I’m heartened to see
that he’s broadened the circle of his criticism to include things
that seem obvious, or which the culture has glommed onto. Unlike
Gabennesch, however, I do not think there is a neutral ground from
which to begin this process. One simply can’t be skeptical about
everything.To cite an obvious example in his essay, Gabennesch endorses Dawkins’
three skeptical points:

1. Skeptics do not believe easily. They have outgrown childlike
credulity to a greater extent than most adults ever do.
2. When skeptics take a position, they do so provisionally. They
understand that their knowledge on any subject is fallible,
incomplete, and subject to change.
3. Skeptics defer to no sacred cows. They regard orthodoxies as the
mortal enemy of critical thought-all orthodoxies, including those
that lie close to home.

Is there anything provisional in his endorsement of these points?

On the contrary, he is quite dogmatic in this “skeptic’s orthodoxy”.
In number three especially, he’s in the position of a doctor who
needs to heal himself first. Since there is no obvious way to do
this, I think it best to admit that one chooses to believe in capital
T Truth and in rationality and all that is bundled up with it.

To bring us back to the beginning, one chooses to value human life.
There is no intellectual proof for it. Because we choose to value
human life, most of us would not agree to bomb a house if there might
be someone inside it. Buffett, Gates and Martin have all avoided this
non rational but still reasonable constraint by saying that they know
the house is empty. Let’s be real critical thinkers and ask how they
know this to be true – ask them how it is that this is not a sacred
cow or wishful thinking on their part. And if it is a sacred cow – one
that competes with placing a high value on human life, why should we
choose it when doing so places all of us at risk? A serious brain
injury is not hard to come by.The stakes on this question are high. Let’s not
be hasty or sloppy in answering it; let’s affirm that we stand behind one another as
human beings. We hear it often enough, but the follow through is questionable. We need to be more critical not less, and really hear the arguments – even the one that gets maligned in most of the public press.


Written by Curt

June 29, 2006 at 4:37 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: