To be honest, the bias viewpoint I held at the start of reading this article, was one full of rebellious sentiments against stick-in-the-mud and the rather antiquated Christian extremists, who seem to reject science in its entirety, denying its intelligence for the easy comfort of biblical understanding. However, as I read, the article affirmed the accuracy of my bias despite my attempts to read it in a nonpartisan way. This author, though she criticizes Keirstead for his logic, brings to the table an unfair comparison between the sacrifices she must make as a young mother, even of a child with neurofibromatosis and the death of frozen embryos. She prefaces all of her transcribed conversations with her criticisms that they are illogical, escapist, hesitant justifications for what they know is wrong. This style of writing preys on the reader looking to be reaffirmed that the ESC research is immoral, and given the “short cut” to understanding of incredibly complex philosophical ideas, by means of almost hypnotic complacency. As it relates to Ms. Scheller’s use of diction it unveils to me and almost offensive partisanship towards the immorality of the ESC, and to use her effective prefaces against her as it were, it seems to evince the subjectivity of her mindset during the interview. She didn’t go to learn; she went to conquer... the researchers, her doubts, the system, or a slew of other adversaries. Additionally, it seems quite ironic and perhaps purposeful that she refers to ESC logic as the Embryonic Stem Cell Center logic and calls it escapist, which is perhaps the more popular word with the abbreviation esc. Her diction serves her own means, as most diction does, but in the context of her audience and the power her words will have, she seems either fearful of appearing to radical or new age (though I would not go so far as to say her beliefs are façade), or she is cleverly weaving words to cast a light of sympathy on her own situation, of ignorance on the researches, of immorality of the process, and connect it back to herself, and in a way uses “compassion as a virtue” to sustain her own argument. An argument not really so much spoken, but sort of assembled; like an artist drawing negative space rather than positive space. As it relates to the interviewees, their diction seems surprisingly informal for the scholarly positions they have achieved. This is both comforting and revealing at the same time. It gives credence to the quote from Rae, “[Scientists] need to be careful that they’re not trying to be amateur philosophers when they make philosophical pronouncements.” This could not be better said except that scientists probably ought to include all amateurs in the field of philosophy; that is, including Ms. Scheller… and me. It is a world of generalities, of philosiphical assertions from every person on this planet. Each person of course comes to the table knowing they have it all right. Amusing.
In the conclusion here, to talk of the conclusion there, it seems as though she ended the article there with a paragraph full of self-promotion, ungrounded statements, rather unintelligent implied beliefs. She convinced herself she won, though this only lessened here frail argument in my eyes. That it necessitated this type of ‘parent clause’ of you may be right I may be right, but your not writing the article. These things, evidenced by over generalized diction such as inevitability, prerogative, and the phrase “that point simply can’t be proven”. It would have been correct to state we can’t fully understand God’s views therefore it is up to interpretation of the Bible reader and revelation through prayer and meditation to get an accurate answer. This personal aspect was gotten at by the researchers, but, as she portrayed them all as humanists, the fact that they did nnot use the Bible in their explanation or their support posed a significant problem in her eyes. What a common misconception. What a horrid trap that can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment