Gallagher discussion elsewhere

Just wanted to point y’all to PZ’s post on Gallagher’s editorial (as he notes, he’s much less generous than I am) and make a few clarifications:


1) Gallagher didn’t coin the term “spiritual left;” that’s lifted from Silver’s book. I know many of the comments strongly disagreed with that term, and to be fair, it’s not of his invention.

2) I understand that most of the examples Gallagher mentioned are present on all sides of the political spectrum. I agree that the right has more political clout and funding, and I disagree with Gallagher with his statement that the left is a bigger threat to science. That doesn’t excuse those on the left who are using, and promoting, bad science.

3) I understand there are real scientific controversies about GM food, drugs by pharmaceutical companies, etc. I’m not writing those off, nor am I universally defending things like GM food and various gdrugs as inherently “good.” But most of the arguments I hear and read from those who argue against various drugs, or vaccines, etc. are based on a whole lot of conspiracy theory and very little (if any) science.

Comments

  1. #1 Pierce R. Butler
    July 25, 2006

    Grugs are not inherently good?!? [gasp!]

    Come on, now: have you ever seen a bad grug?

  2. #2 Tara C. Smith
    July 25, 2006

    :) Smartass. Fixed the typo, thanks.

Current ye@r *