[Vision2020] Global Warming

[Melynda Huskey]

Of course I love to see footnotes:  appropriate citation warms my crabbed 
and pedantic heart.  But if Dr. Wieland were my student, he'd get a 
"tsk-tsk" in the margin.  He's using his evidence very sloppily, and in a 
way which calls his conclusions into question.  (Take heart, John 
Harrell--you're not the only one calling me "Your Majesty.")

Take, for example, Footnote 3.  Not only is it an error-ridden 
citation--according to Lexis/Nexis, the article's title is "Vivisection, 
Morals, and Medicine,"and it has only one author, R.G. Frey--but it is not, 
in fact, evidence that "many" animal liberationists support the use of 
people with disabilities for medical research.  Frey is a philosophy 
professor at Bowling Green State University who actually supports the use 
of animals in medical research.  The article in question examines the 
ethical bases of arguments in favor of animal research, notes certain 
lacunae, and considers the consequences of them.  Frey does not make any 
claim at all about the frequency of the argument.  As a philosopher, that's 
not his bailiwick.  So Wieland's use of the footnote confers a spurious 
sense of fact to the numerical claim.  That's pretty darned disingenuous.

Likewise I wonder--does the reference to Time magazine support the 
statistical facts about the tragic deaths in Bhopal, or the unspecified and 
misty "some" callous treehuggers who care more about a few mangy birds than 
the suffering of human beings?  ("100% of the environmentalists we surveyed 
could have cared less about Bhopal . . .and our sample size was . . . 1")

Dr. Wieland's citations don't reflect generally accepted academic standards 
for the use of documentation.  So would it be wise of me to believe his 
conclusions?  I don't think so.  Either he doesn't know how to make a 
supported argument, or he's deliberately distorting the evidence.  Neither 
alternative inspires confidence.

Melynda Huskey



Melynda Huskey