Book Review, Review

Rhetoric Criticism of

“Do we live on a ‘privileged’ planet?”[1]

Reviewer Amy Coombs as seen through the eyes of G. D. Vreeland.

I read a review of The Privileged Planet written by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards,[2] and reviewed by Ms. Amy Coombs.  There was so little content to the review that I had to read between the lines to find out what was wrong with the reviewer and right with the book.  Part of it had to do with the pedigree and part of it had to do with the way she panned the book.  Actually, because of the way the book was trashed, I think I will buy the book and read it.  But in the mean time, let us take a look at some red flags she throws up in the attempt to make us believe that the book is not worth the print. 

Peer-Review

The shortest distance between the status quo and intellectual constipation is the peer-review straightjacket.  When I saw that X & Y had not bowed the knee to the usual demigods, it made me want to run right out and buy the book. 

Without peer review you can really know what the author/editor thinks and whether or not they are trying to sell you on something you wouldn’t otherwise buy.  The quickest example is Geographic’s feathered dinosaur issue (November 1999, 98-107).  They had to recant the article in a following issue (October 2000, 128-31).  But along the way we learn little secrets like that there are “. . . some scientists in the holdout group that opposes the birds-from-dinosaurs theory. . . .” (Ibid. 132).  Also that there is one “Storrs L. Olson, curator of birds at the Smithsonian Institution and a leading opponent of the theory. . .” (Ibid.).  That is certainly not what I had crammed down my throat in high school – neither what my twin teenagers have to swallow lock stock and barrel at theirs.  At least we know that – against all odds – National Geographic still holds out a weak candle of hope for the discovery of a missing link.  In short, they severely jeopardized their credibility. 

The fact that what is published must be reviewed by guild wizards.  However, accountability is never two-way.  Usually, when an article is rejected, reasons are not given and the rejection is not signed.  We cannot know whether the rejection is academic or political.  In short, if you are part of the good-ol’-boy network, you never have to give an account of yourself – in fact, you don’t even have to read the article if you don’t want to. . . .  The fact that Ms. X has her work presented on PBS Radio, is indicative of the fact that she, herself, is merely another of the guild clerics of Scientism. 

Philosophy

Despite Ms. X’s contention that X & Y spent too much time debating the philosophy of the issue, I am glad they did.  Because whether or not we wish to admit it, it is all metaphysics.  All the data that “science” can array for a subject of inquiry is nothing without assumptions and argument, and that is metaphysics.  Apart from epistemology, science is merely a data dump whose bones are picked over by any theoretician and sensationalist.  It is when people that think get involved that things get really interesting.  Unfortunately, most of the guild wizards, or as I prefer to call them Doctors of the Divinity of Scientism, have forgotten that for which the Ph. in their D’s stands.  Whether they like it or not, they are Doctors of Philosophy and they should probably grow up and assume responsibility for what they have become.  learn to act like it.  Just a point: one hungers to know exactly which “philosophy” they are debating and she is decrying.  One also hungers to know whether or not she would know what she was talking about should she accurately identify one.  I do not intend to patronize here but we have an evaluation on philosophy by a lab-rat.  I think a serious disservice has been done to the authors in the panning of this book and the publication of the review by the editors of Astronomy.  If you intend to defame someone, at least have the decency to tell the constituency what the problem is. 

When Ms. X excuses the books obvious “shortcomings,” it seems that she is begging us to read the book.  After such a pan, we can only know that it goes against the grain of what the guild would believe.  From that we might infer that, unless you are a SETI supporting, Astro-Biologist believing guild cleric of Scientism, she cannot support your philosophy.  For those who deal with certain realities, such as the “anthropic principle” and the simple fact that you would be microwaved beyond incineration in most star systems or frozen crystalline or both depending upon the time of your orbit, there just does not seem to be too many places in the observable universe that life as we understand it and on our parameters might infest.  Statistically, it seems rather a waste of time to go searching for inhabitable planets rather than visiting some of our near neighbors and attempting to “terra-form” them. 

As we discovered in the recent presidential race media campaigns can make you or break you, The so-called “alternate media” (Blogosphere, Cable News, AM radio) is a place where the little people can toss around ideas and finally toss them out if they do not work.  Because there are some rather limited controls on these mediums, the problems are pandemic; however, so are the benefits!  In the first place we were no longer required to agree with the bias of the mainstream, establishment media.  Cool!  And we no longer have to be enslaved to the gods of “science” either.  We can deal with their ideas as well as they can – and it is only their bluff, bluster and arrogance that says we cannot.  The fact is that any construal of factoids involves argument.  Argument is philosophy and we can reason as well or better than those who have been brainwashed by the establishment.  It is an exciting time to be alive – whether in the political life or the thought life of the world!  Ms. X really ought to get out more often, perhaps new ideas wouldn’t be so offensive to her. . . .