Huffington Post is right up there with Psychology Today in its willingness to post absolute nonsensical woo. But they seemed to have been trying to get better (HuffPo, that is. Psych Today, whatever), even going so far as to create an actual science section.
It has to be science in a science section, right? Well, no. If you get some humanities pseudoscience crank determining what science is, its easy to lose sight of what a science site is.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about Bioethicist Peter Singer - since we know 'ethics' in modern times is essentially moral relativism and certainly postmodernism - and thus I leave it to the Denialism blog on Scienceblogs to take down Huffington Post. Sure, I can brutalize the anti-science progressive crackpots in the animal rights movement as well as anyone, but it's nice to see someone else do it once in a while.
To be clear, biological science without use of animals is impossible. It's not just toxicity testing of drugs either, and we are fully aware of the limitations of our animal models, thankyouverymuch. But from the ground up, the study of life depends on the use of living things.
and then, echoing things we all have said, to the horror of people in California and Washington State
Well fine, I admit it. I value human life over that of other species. I've devoted my life to saving human lives, and as a scientist, I've sacrificed animal lives to do so every time I've ordered a polyclonal antibody or bottle of FBS. According to radicals like Friedrich that makes me "vivisector". I'm therefore a monster, like a slaver or murderer.
Not much I can add to that. Well played, Scienceblogs folks.
Huffpo Science - already slipping into anti-science by Mark Hoofnagle, Scienceblogs.com
H/T RealClearScience
