Many heuristics that we use in our everyday lives are fallacious. If you intend to convince somebody, don't be fallacious. Be logical.
Especially if you're a FUCKING SCIENTIST:
"
WIRED: How do you square what you believe about animal consciousness with how they’re used in experiments?
Koch: There are two things to put in perspective. First, there are vastly more animals being eaten at McDonald’s every day. The number of animals used in research pales in comparison to the number used for flesh. And we need basic brain research to understand the brain’s mechanisms. My father died from Parkinson’s. One of my daughters died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. To prevent these brain diseases, we need to understand the brain — and that, I think, can be the only true justification for animal research. That in the long run, it leads to a reduction in suffering for all of us. But in the short term, you have to do it in a way that minimizes their pain and discomfort, with an awareness that these animals are conscious creatures.
"
Koch: There are two things to put in perspective. First, there are vastly more animals being eaten at McDonald’s every day. The number of animals used in research pales in comparison to the number used for flesh. And we need basic brain research to understand the brain’s mechanisms. My father died from Parkinson’s. One of my daughters died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. To prevent these brain diseases, we need to understand the brain — and that, I think, can be the only true justification for animal research. That in the long run, it leads to a reduction in suffering for all of us. But in the short term, you have to do it in a way that minimizes their pain and discomfort, with an awareness that these animals are conscious creatures.
"
The stock response that every scientist is trained to spout when they are asked a question about animal experimentation. First, the red herring fallacy is used to distract the questioner. Then an ad populum fallacy is used to avoid following an argument to its logical conclusion.
Literally, this is what we're taught in science classes. I've read the same argument being spoon-fed to me in my physio psych book:
"Whether an experiment is worthwhile is difficult to say. We use animals for many purposes. We eat their meat and eggs, and we drink their milk; we turn their hides into leather; we extract insulin and other hormones from their organs to treat people's diseases; we train them to do useful work on farms or to entertain us. Even having a pet is a form of exploitation; it is we--not they--who decide that they will live in our homes. The fact is, we have been using other animals throughout the history of our species."
(The red herring fallacy and the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, "Physiology of Behavior" by Neil Carlson, 11th edition, 22)
"The disproportionate amount of concern that animal rights activists show toward the use of animals in research and education is puzzling, particularly because this is the one indispensable use of animals. We can survive without eating animals, we can live without hunting, we can do without furs; but without using animals for research and training future researchers, we cannot make progress in understanding and treating diseases."
(The logical fallacy of the false alternative, or a false dilemma, Carlson 23)
"Nicholl and Russell (1990) examined twenty-one books written by [animal rights] activists and counted the number of pages devoted to concern for different uses of animals. Next, they compared the relative concern the authors showed for these uses to the numbers of animals actually involved in each of these categories."
(It must be the case that you're shitting me. I can't. I simply can't. Carlson 22).
That rhetoric is not uncommon for an introductory neuroscience textbook. I'm not kidding.
I truly resent being told to spout such illogical babble, and I resent that it's the norm in my professional community. I don't believe animal experimentation is okay, because I, to some large extent that I haven't precisely quantified yet, believe in virtue-based ethics. I think that in an open, universal system, there's always a better way. There's always a solution that doesn't require you to do something wrong. Sometimes it's difficult to find the right solution, but it is never impossible.
We could have done those experiments on people who were otherwise on death row. We could have developed better imaging technologies quicker. We could have spent money on gathering more human bodies to use after people die, instead of being cremated or buried. We could still do the important research and be virtuous while doing it.
Being virtuous requires you to overcome your human predisposition for seeing scenarios as false dilemmas. It's easy to look at the debate and say "You're against animal rights or you're against research". But that's not the case. You can both support animal liberation and scientific discoveries! Even the medical kind!
By the way, I took this from an interview with somebody whose scientific opinion on the nature of consciousness is incredibly valuable and interesting. Just because he's wrong about one thing doesn't make him wrong about another. His argument about animal welfare is logically invalid, and therefore holds zero credence in an intelligent discussion. But the view of consciousness that he advocates a fascinating, and theoretically if not yet quantifiable, hypothesis.
P.S. Does anybody have a problem with profanity? Because you shouldn't. It communicates incredibly useful information about affect and intent.
No comments:
Post a Comment