Bill Nye's a science guy, right? Well, I mean, an electrical engineer entertainer familiar enough with science to produce a popular kid's show and get all kinds of speaking appointments to discuss scientific principles and knowledge counts, right? Sure! Why not?
Well, it turns out that while he may be accurate on his science, what he does next with the facts runs counter to the pursuit of truth science is aimed for in the first place. It's a tactic he's used to. He's used it in global warming and against young earth creationism. But it's still sophistry to carefully move the goalposts to make your debate opponent seem like he's missing the target when he's spot on.
Here's what I mean:
1. This video begins with the truth that the union of sperm and ova is a necessary but insufficient condition for the development of a fetus. Fair point, right? That's a question of science, and science has answered it, so he's in-bounds at this point. But then, he proceeds to conclude that because there's another necessary condition for the production of human embryos (implantation into the uterine lining) that anyone who believes that life begins at conception is irrational and non-scientific. He's moved from scientific question to a question of ethics, politics, and, indeed, morality all while hoping his audience doesn't notice the sleight of hand, and falls into the trap.
Here's the corrective: What is the beginning point of a new child if it's not conception? When an egg and a sperm are united, is a new entity not created? Is that new entity not human? Just because other conditions exist doesn't make it any less true that conception is the beginning of new human life. To argue otherwise is not only counterfactual, in a strict scientific sense, but also transgresses the first law of scientific inquiry: some questions are not scientific, but belong to some other category (moral, political, etc.).
Shame on you, Mr. Nye. You of all people should know better than to present a political opinion as if it were scientific truth.
2. There are some that argue that since life begins at conception, any kind of birth control that does not protect this life from that point on, or prevents implantation (or other sine qua non conditions of pregnancy) are de facto abortifacients, and are therefore murderous. Mr. Nye is quite right to point out that many fertilized eggs do not reach full development into human beings, but he, again, moves the goalposts and hopes you're not paying attention as he quickly shifts from a scientific fact to a question of morality, ethics, and the politics of the judicial system.
Here's the corrective: If adult humans purposely cause fertilized eggs to fail other conditions that would have allowed them to become viable embryos, does that make them guilty of murder? Not at all, because murders are specific things, and birth control methods are general. Look, this might not satisfy the strictest biomedical ethicist in the world, but even though the life is new and is human at conception, there's no way to know which eggs are viable--a mechanism is in play which is beyond the capacity of any adult to guarantee its advancement--so even though we can guarantee the failure of all eggs, there's no positive responsibility for the failure of any specific egg that we otherwise could guarantee the full development of. The point is that it's a straw man setup to claim your opponents believe in criminalizing birth control just because they believe that conception is the beginning of life, because it cleverly conflates a positive responsibility for a specific failure with a general responsibility for preventing an unknowable success.
3. From here, Mr. Nye attacks biblical-based opposition to abortion, as if the only argument against abortion is Bible based. This one moves the goalposts in two ways: first it falsely assumes that an argument based on faith has no logical merit; then it conflates a logical argument with a moral one.
Here's the corrective: The biology of human beings hasn't changed in the 50 centuries since the first written traces of the Bible, and neither has the morality it teaches. Just because our understanding of how the miracle of life happens has increased makes it no less miraculous, nor does the fact that science understands the processes better justify a doctor, a pregnant woman, or anyone else deciding that a human life has no value. Whether the question was posed 50 centuries ago or not, the answer remains the same: if we don't believe that human beings have infinite potential to love, to progress, and to contribute to society, then why don't we kill the handicapped ones, or those with lesser capacity, or the elderly, for example? That would be intellectually honest and consistent with a logic that convenience of the living should dictate the value of life, wouldn't it? Mr. Nye, shame on you for not believing in human potential. Of all people, I would expect scientists who know the history of scientific progress would wonder at the lives of the scientists who brought it to pass, many of whose potential wasn't obviously predictable from their beginnings, as with any fetus.
4. Another goalpost Mr. Nye moves is the one that begins by framing abortion as a question of science, then does a sideways jig to make it a question of "European" male control over women's bodies.
Here's the corrective: Abortion opponents don't want to control anyone, they just correctly note that ending a human life before it has a chance to fulfill its potential is, in fact, the ultimate abuse of control. The same people (conservatives, for the sake of labeling them) who call for the murder of the unborn to end are the ones who out-contribute others, even when they're from poor states themselves, in charitable donations, and who spend countless volunteer hours organizing and serving directly to help adoption agencies, women's shelters, food pantries, and other forms of aid to help children who might otherwise have been aborted, and their families, broken as they may be. No one wants to make a woman suffer the full consequences of the abuse of a man's procreative power, but instead stand ready to assist in making sure the negative consequences are as minimal as possible--because we believe in the potential of the child (who is clearly not to blame for any of the adults' choices) and that therefore the sacrifice that all children require--some more than others--is always worth it for everyone involved.
5. Finally, Mr. Nye is simply factually wrong, and frankly quite hypocritical about the effectiveness of abstinence. As a scientist he should be the first to admit that abstinence works every time it's tried. But even here, he's moving goalposts. He wants us to believe that because some people make the choice to engage in sex, that no one is capable of abstaining. The goalposts move because he's again claiming that sociological statistics on how many choose to engage in sex despite understanding that not abstaining carries the risk of pregnancy are all that should be considered when making public policy on how to educate people against that risk, when really the question is more than a biological or sociological one, because human beings have agency, and the question is therefore also a moral one.
Here's the corrective: no one thinks that children shouldn't be educated about the risks involved in sexual contact, but to pretend that sex ed is merely a question of biology and health ignores the more essential moral risks sexual behavior poses. When one leaves out the morality of the question, thinking of sex as satisfaction of self distorts the very real consequences of self-perception, objectification, and identity that intersect its practice--and that's even before we consider the effects on a partner. Choosing when and how to engage in sex is, ultimately, up to each individual, and therefore only an ultimate distrust of an individual's power to choose wisely can produce the false assumption that abstinence doesn't work. Would Mr. Nye be intellectually honest and consistent with his applying such logic to any other domain of choice? Can we trust that human beings won't choose violence? Maybe Mr. Nye would like to propose we stop teaching children not to bully others because bullying still happens and it's apparently inevitable. Maybe instead we should teach them to bully safely? To wear the proper protection while bullying? Or make sure to obtain consent before bullying--yes, that should work, right?
Mr. Nye, you're a sophist, not a scientist. and your ideas on abortion, birth control, and religion are neither objective, nor scientific, nor even very accurate. They are, instead, based on intellectual dishonesty, ad hominem prejudicial anger, and, ultimately, immorality.
Comments