This cartoon could be used to support anything that anyone disagrees with. It's essentially an ad hominem attack on all scientists (who have had their moments of failure) and all journalists (who must be tempted from time to time to take a short cut when checking out a source).
I usually like Dilbert, but I think this one opens reputable scientists and journalists to attack-by-adjective as much as the "weasels" who abuse science.
What's wrong with the message, Fred? I don't think scientists in general object to the notion that the media and popular opinion don't decide what is or isn't valid science. Much of so-called scientific debate, unfortunately, is done over the mainstream media. However, the real debates happen in peer-review, academic circles, and research institutes. The media tends to create scientific controversy where there really isn't by giving more creedence to radical viewpoints than the scientific community does.
I hope I'm not overlooking some subtle clue that Fred and Lance are being sarcastic here. Scientists are people. People can be vile and venal, or they can be ethical and behave with integrity. They can be anything in between as well. The same person may behave ethically in one situation and be the epitome of venality in another. Saying that the cartoon presents a 'false dichotomy' may be true semantically (is there such a thing as a 'good' or 'bad' scientist, etc.), but misses the point that while science itself tends toward objective truth (or at least empirical truth - let's please not argue about either of those terms), any given person, scientist or otherwise, is vulnerable to the same foibles that plague all of us. Are there any Big Oil executives that would conspire to mislead the public to further their own interests? Anybody in the pharmaceutical industry? Or the military, or organized religion? Then why not scientists? The cartoon - and I think it's ironic that a proponent of ID came up with it - makes the point that it's all too easy to, as Erik said, create controversy and doubt where none existed, and effectively mislead the public.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I just saw an alternate interpretation of the cartoon that speaks as ill of scientists and journalists as it does of "weasels."
Lance's "agreement" is really a third interpretation. I think we can all concur with his statement:
"There are not 'good' and 'bad' scientists.
The quality and verifiability of the research is what counts, not the political leanings of the scientists and their respective advocates or critics."
But that is not what I found disconcerting about the cartoon.
Actually, Chris, you may need to say more.
This cartoon could be used to support anything that anyone disagrees with. It's essentially an ad hominem attack on all scientists (who have had their moments of failure) and all journalists (who must be tempted from time to time to take a short cut when checking out a source).
I usually like Dilbert, but I think this one opens reputable scientists and journalists to attack-by-adjective as much as the "weasels" who abuse science.
What's wrong with the message, Fred? I don't think scientists in general object to the notion that the media and popular opinion don't decide what is or isn't valid science. Much of so-called scientific debate, unfortunately, is done over the mainstream media. However, the real debates happen in peer-review, academic circles, and research institutes. The media tends to create scientific controversy where there really isn't by giving more creedence to radical viewpoints than the scientific community does.
That's the message here, in my opinion.
I agree with Fred. Science isn't a popularity contest. This cartoon is trying to present a false dichotomy. There are not "good" and "bad" scientists.
The quality and verifiability of the research is what counts, not the political leanings of the scientists and their respective advocates or critics.
I hope I'm not overlooking some subtle clue that Fred and Lance are being sarcastic here. Scientists are people. People can be vile and venal, or they can be ethical and behave with integrity. They can be anything in between as well. The same person may behave ethically in one situation and be the epitome of venality in another. Saying that the cartoon presents a 'false dichotomy' may be true semantically (is there such a thing as a 'good' or 'bad' scientist, etc.), but misses the point that while science itself tends toward objective truth (or at least empirical truth - let's please not argue about either of those terms), any given person, scientist or otherwise, is vulnerable to the same foibles that plague all of us. Are there any Big Oil executives that would conspire to mislead the public to further their own interests? Anybody in the pharmaceutical industry? Or the military, or organized religion? Then why not scientists? The cartoon - and I think it's ironic that a proponent of ID came up with it - makes the point that it's all too easy to, as Erik said, create controversy and doubt where none existed, and effectively mislead the public.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I just saw an alternate interpretation of the cartoon that speaks as ill of scientists and journalists as it does of "weasels."
Lance's "agreement" is really a third interpretation. I think we can all concur with his statement:
"There are not 'good' and 'bad' scientists.
The quality and verifiability of the research is what counts, not the political leanings of the scientists and their respective advocates or critics."
But that is not what I found disconcerting about the cartoon.
I think that anyone in the ScienceBlogs community might want to be a little circumspect when referring to "bitter and unsuccessful scientists."