Re: Unacceptably provocative/beyond the point of acceptable debate

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Tim Tyler" <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ffhdlc$2feh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Following James Watson's comments at the weekend, and the
public concern that this has caused in Bristol, the event on
24 October 2007 with James Watson has been cancelled. While
we are a festival that encourages debate, it is clear that
James Watson's opinions were unacceptably provocative."

- http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/

"We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that
cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away
from debating controversial topics.

"However, we feel Dr Watson has gone beyond the point
of acceptable debate and we are, as a result, cancelling
his talk."

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7050020.stm

Neither organisition offers the slightest factual criticism
of Watson's comments. They have none.

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.

I thought so too - they are the ones in my subject line.

They canceled because they are unwilling to accept the kinds
of things that they fear that Watson's appearance at the event
might provoke. What kinds of things do they fear? Use your
imagination. They certainly have.

It seems like a sensible analysis. The triumph of fear
over rational discussion. The power of the media and crowds
to manipulate which scientists get to the podium. It's
frightening stuff - and not just for tour event organisers.
I especially don't like the message it sends to dissenters.
The message that if you kick up enough fuss, you can have
your way, and silence those you disagree with - at least
temporarily.

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.
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.

We may have to wait for the sales figures of Watson's
recent book "Avoid Boring People" before we draw too
many conclusions about who's interests have been furthered:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avoid-Boring-People-Lessons-Science/dp/0192802739/

After all, Watson was rather obviously stirring deliberately -
witness his recent comments about Rosalind Franklin.

Maybe he thinks that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to reply.

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast