Re: Unacceptably provocative/beyond the point of acceptable debate

"Tim Tyler" <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Neither organisition offers the slightest factual criticism
of Watson's comments. They have none.

On Oct 22, 1:20 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Nor do they need one. Read the statement closely. They are not
criticizing Watson for being wrong nor for being controversial. (In
fact, they claim to welcome controversy.) They say that they
cancelled because he has been "unacceptably provocative".
Carefully chosen words, those.

Were you a fly on the wall, observing the care with which the
statement wording was decided?
In any case, they do not say that Watson has *been* provocative, in
the Anne Coulter sense of presenting an idea in a manner calculated to
aggravate the opposition; very revealingly, they say his *opinions*
are provocative. So the provocation would be there no matter who was
the messenger, and no matter with how much meticulous care the point
about racial differences was made.

They canceled because they are unwilling to accept the kinds
of things that they fear that Watson's appearance at the event
might provoke.

Where do they say this? They talk about "the public concern that this
has caused in Bristol", whatever that means.

What kinds of things do they fear? Use your
imagination. They certainly have.

So opponents of Watson's ideas get a veto - and they call it a
"Festival of Ideas"!

Being wrong occasionally is the scientist's prerogative. Being
controversial is sometimes part of a scientist's job description.
But being provocative is not part of the scientist's responsibility.

Again, the provocation lies in the belief, not the act of stating it
or the manner in which it is stated. The upshot will be that any idea
can be silenced by anyone who is offended by it.

It is more the job of educators, political activists, and activists -
people who want to grab your attention and get you to do
something. Watson wears some of those 'hats' in addition to
his scientist hat - true. But when he wears those other hats,
he is supposed to be being provocative in a way that furthers
the interests of the institutions that gave him the hats. He
didn't further those interests.

That's for them to decide.


.

Relevant Pages