A Response to Jentsch and London
On July 24, 2011 Drs David Jentsch and Edythe London of UCLA coauthored a blog regarding their research. The essay was in response to a letter from Larry Hansen MD, Professor of Pathology and Neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego. This is a commentary on their essay. (Please see above link for their entire essay.)
They begin by criticizing Dr Hansen for not including a scientific discussion of their work. I find this particularly ironic, as Jentsch has refused to debate the science of animal-based research with me. Indeed, both he and Dr Dario Ringach backed out of a debate they had agreed to in order to get me to participate in a panel discussion at UCLA. Other vivisection activists, including Dr Ringach and Dr Gorski, have refused to participate in a debate on the science of animal models in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I believe I have offered this opportunity to Drs Jentsch and London but if not, please consider the offer extended.
It is the vivisection activist community that has resorted to “hyperbole and repetition of the general criticisms” not people like Dr Hansen and myself. Neither side can explain the science behind their position in a blog or letter. That is why I have requested that vivisection activists join me in debating the topic in the scientific literature where fallacies are not usually allowed and facts matter. The fact that they have not agreed to this speaks volumes regarding their confidence in their position. They are very willing to expound on the merits of animal-based research when there is nothing at stake, in blogs, but are unwilling to have their fallacies exposed in venue where such nonsense can be definitively refuted and on the record for posterity. The scientific literature is where debates about science take place. When people who profess to be scientists refuse to take the issue in question to the scientific literature, that ends the controversy from my perspective.
The rest of the Jentsch London essay is an attempt to justify their research. In the final analysis, their essay reveals a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of evolutionary biology and complex systems. Shanks and I have addressed the implication of the fact that animals are complex systems with different evolutionary histories in our book Animal Models in Light of Evolution. I refer the reader there for more information.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
The above 2 posts from Drs Ringach and Jentsch speak for themselves.
Duh genius.
Dr. Ringach touched a very sensitive nerve when he stated his view that Dr. Greek isn't a scientist. It certainly is true that Dr. Greek has no scientific credentials. He has written a few psuedo-scientific books that make circular, poorly-formed and/or ragged conclusions based upon selective use of available data, but so have many other people, including similar "scientists" who defy the status quo in their quests to defend extra-sensory perception, Bigfoot or the biological superiority of white people. Whether Dr. Greek is, or is not, a scientist is debatable but ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is that:
Dr. Greek is not a GOOD scientist because he is intentionally intellectually-dishonest. He ignores any and all data that do not support his belief structure. He knows that data is there and simply chooses to dismiss its value. This is what matters.
For this reason alone, I won't be participating in any sort of discussion or debate with him in any forum at all (not at UCLA or another University, not even at Dairy Queen). That said, he is free to continue posting these infantile challenges to Dr. Ringach and myself, each providing him an opportunity to plug his latest book. Perhaps if we continue posting on OpposingViews, he can continue replying, and the dusty, unread books littering his garage might actually get sold.
You don't look hot with a beard. Don't hide your eyes if you want to look half normal. Does your mom know what you do to primates? She looks nice in pink.
Response to above comments from Dr Ringach
Dr Ringach: “You just want to be heard, but you never listen.” No, in a debate both sides present and both sides better listen or the audience will quickly discern which side is presenting the straw man arguments. Which is why I want a debate and why you refuse.
Dr Ringach: “So who forced you to participate [in the UCLA panel discussion]?” I participated based on the mutually agreed to premise that you and or Jentsch would participate in a debate to follow. Needless to say you guys backed out and have been avoiding a debate ever since.
As to whether I am a scientist, I refer you to the following:
According to Merriam-Webster:
“Scientist: a person learned in science and especially natural science.
: a scientific investigator.”
According to The Free Dictionary, a scientist is: “a person who studies or practises any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods.”
According to dictionary.com, a scientist is: “an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.”
According to Wikipedia:
“A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.”
And finally, the following from the former editor of The Scientist, Richard Gallagher:
“You might expect that newly minted science graduates - who presumably think of themselves as scientists, and who I'd thought of as scientists - would have a well-developed sense of what science is. So it's pretty shocking to discover that a large proportion of them don't have a clue.” (Gallagher 2008)
Being an MD does not preclude one from being a scientist, while being a PhD, solely, does preclude one from practicing medicine. At least legally.
Dr Ringach: “When you publish an article you think your views are validated by the rigor of peer review. When a scientist does the same you consider the result fallacious reasoning published by a friendly journal. Yes, opposing views in the literature qualify as debate.”
No. When I publish an article I do not refer to it as a debate. No one refers to articles in the literature as a debate, except in the same way they refer to guessing which team will win the football game, as a prediction. There are formal and informal/nonscientific uses of words and when one person mixes and matches them, there is usually a reason. And yes, such mixing and matching is a fallacy.
And yes, I do think that there is a difference between someone publishing an article in the peer-reviewed and indexed literature when that article goes against the status quo and someone else publishing an article that supports the status quo. Guess which one is more likely to be scrutinized. Guess which one is going to be rejected simply because it challenges the status quo. And no, the publishing is not fallacious, the content, if your blogs are representative, probably is. (Although I have not seen the content of your article in the American Journal of Medical Sciences.)
Gish gallop. According to your link: “The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.” That describes you sir, not me and I am willing to take my position to the peer-reviewed and refereed literature where such nonsense is not allowed in a formal Point Counterpoint (at least by the better journals). Just look at what you wrote above. That is Gish gallop limited only by space. You avoid the real point and bring up more red herrings, half-truths, and other fallacies.
I tell you what. You obviously do not want to take this to the peer-reviewed literature and you take issue with my being a skeptic, so lets take it to one of the skeptic journals and let the editors referee the debate in terms of fallacies etc. They can force deletions of fallacies or any point not supported by the references and currently accepted science and force each party to address the arguments made by the other. I am sure we can find a skeptic magazine or website that would love to have this debate and find referees that are mutually acceptable. I am very willing to do that! I bet you are not.
It obviously does not bother you to misquote me or misrepresent my position even when the quote is on the same page and I am obviously going to respond. How stupid do you think the readers are? Advertising may work by repeating the same message constantly, regardless of truth, but that technique does not usually work when the quote you are mangling or the position you are misrepresenting is available just above the comment.
The above is WHY I do not think there is any room for dialogue. There is only room for side-by-side presentation and rebuttals so the reader can discern the differences in what my position actually is and the straw man arguments you pretend are my position. No wonder that is the very thing you and Jentsch avoid like the plague.
Not a scientist, misquotes on the same page where the comments are, misrepresenting the agreements surrounding the UCLA panel discussion, the usual ad hominems. These are all verifiably wrong. This really is a new low for you. Thanks!!
No Sir, you are not a scientist.
Science is about advancing knowledge. Knowledge that benefits mankind.
Contrary to the prevailing scientific view, you believe that advancing “knowledge for knowledge sake” in the life sciences cannot benefit human health.
Science is about respecting evidence and the data. You have shown disregard for both, deliberately twisting them to fit your views.
You have no scientific modesty.
You consider yourself a medical genius misunderstood by the scientific community. Blinded by arrogance, you can only explain the scientific opposition as the result of conspiracy theories and ulterior motives, rejecting the a more simple and plausible explanation: you are wrong.
No Sir, you are not a scientist, but rather the opposite.
“My goal is not to foster dialogue”
That’s exactly my point.
You just want to be heard, but you never listen.
You merely want access to a pulpit to preach from.
Not a very scholarly attitude I must say.
And you call yourself a certified, open-minded skeptic?!
“That is why I was opposed to the panel discussion”
Opposed? So who forced you to participate?
“Nobis and Francione are not scientists.”
Neither are you.
“Instead you publish opinions in journals friendly to your position and call that debate. That is not debate.”
That’s funny.
When you publish an article you think your views are validated by the rigor of peer review. When a scientist does the same you consider the result fallacious reasoning published by a friendly journal.
Yes, opposing views in the literature qualify as debate.
Each side presents evidence that supports/contradicts the stated positions. The public can read our respective positions and justifications and make an informed decision based on the scientific evidence.
Of course, I understand you’d rather prefer a pulpit from where you can Gish-Gallop your opponent (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop). Honestly, I doubt this is going to happen any time soon.
Response to Dr Ringach
Dr Ringach stated: "You already know I wrote an article criticizing your views to appear in the American Journal of Medical Sciences shortly."
No, I did not know that. I knew you were writing an article, instead of engaging in a debate, but not that it had been accepted or where. Why did you think I knew that? You have not communicated that to me. Did you ask someone else to do so? Why would you misrepresent that? Does this indicate a pattern of misrepresentation? Professionals would have asked me to read the article before submission to make sure what you were criticizing was in fact my position. No sense in setting up a straw man unless that is what you were trying to do because you cannot respond to the actual arguments we make.
Dr Ringach: "I cannot imagine why you continue to misconstrue the facts on this matter, although it is evident that deception comes naturally to you."
That speaks for itself.
Dr Ringach: "Moreover, mine is only the last in a series of articles refuting your position. Others like Morrison, Cohn & Parker, have also replied to your views in the literature. Over the past year, I have also addressed to your posts in Opposing Views. It is disingenuous to say your position has not been addressed. It has. Many times over."
No. Everything you cite has either been a straw man or flat out misrepresentation.
Dr Ringach: "Your whining is childish and misplaced."
That speaks for itself.
Dr Ringach: "I can say in good faith we did our best to initiate dialogue with the local animal rights community. All we received for our efforts after the UCLA panel discussion (in which you participated) was increased threats and harassment from your acquaintances: http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/07/20/whatever-happened-to-dialogue/ "
I am not responsible for the actions of others and condemned violent acts at the UCLA event. The panel discussion was not my idea. If you are not happy with the outcome, disucss it with the AR people that you say are my acquantances.
Dr Ringach: "The fact our effort at dialogue was truly sincere is evident in the fact that we have continued our conversations with opponents of animal research elsewhere. These included debates with Dr. Nathan Nobis (who is, in fact, one of your co-authors) and Prof. Gary Francione. What have you done to foster dialogue? Absolutely nothing at all."
1. My goal is not to foster dialogue. I do not think we have enough in common for dialogue. That is why I was opposed to the panel discussion. My goal is to allow light to shine on your position by responding in a debate, preferably in the scientific literature, to your points and have readers see that your response is a straw man. THAT is my goal. That is not dialogue. You et al. have refused debates at universities and in the scientific literature. Instead you publish opinions in journals friendly to your position and call that debate. That is not debate. I am asking for our positions to be compared side by side in the literature and you are refusing. To any open-minded scientist or skeptic, that says it all!
2. Nobis and Francione are not scientists. I have no issue with your debating philosophy or law with them but saying or implying that you have debated science with them is disingenuous. My issue is science and you have not engaged in my arguments.
PS. Still working on the response to your FIM dose essay. I might submit it to a journal as it is a nice outline of parts of our position.
PPS. The thalidomide article that I said I would write in response to your, and others', position has been accepted and should be published soon.
You already know I wrote an article criticizing your views to appear in the American Journal of Medical Sciences shortly.
I cannot imagine why you continue to misconstrue the facts on this matter, although it is evident that deception comes naturally to you.
Moreover, mine is only the last in a series of articles refuting your position. Others like Morrison, Cohn & Parker, have also replied to your views in the literature. Over the past year, I have also addressed to your posts in Opposing Views.
It is disingenuous to say your position has not been addressed. It has. Many times over. Your whining is childish and misplaced.
I can say in good faith we did our best to initiate dialogue with the local animal rights community. All we received for our efforts after the UCLA panel discussion (in which you participated) was increased threats and harassment from your acquaintances:
http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/07/20/whatever-happened-to-dialogue/
The fact our effort at dialogue was truly sincere is evident in the fact that we have continued our conversations with opponents of animal research elsewhere. These included debates with Dr. Nathan Nobis (who is, in fact, one of your co-authors) and Prof. Gary Francione.
What have you done to foster dialogue?
Absolutely nothing at all.
The article in the journal was poor. But you're crafty to get the blind boobs on stage with you for nice photo ops. It takes only a tap on the ego so you're not that crafty.