The differences between scientists and animal rights activists
Take a poll of an average grouping of people and they're likely to state that in order to be a fervent animal rights activist, you must be a scientist. After all, simple reasoning dictates that activists are knowledgeable and knowledgeable people are scientists.
It irks me to no end as a biology student to be lumped together with controversial, sometimes violent people, who often only support their cause to follow what's trendy.
Don't get me wrong, I like animals very much. I condemn unnecessary cruelty to the full extent of the law, but like most things in life, animal rights has its limits. There are several major animal rights organizations, some more radical than others. By going to their web sites, you will be fed an eye-full of propaganda at 6000 words per minute, with more blinking icons and flashing do-dads than an online casino. This is not science.
When a scientist conducts work, he will take an objective approach to his work. Yes he may have a burning desire to prove his argument, but should a lack of supporting evidence hamper his work, he would reject his hypothesis and start over. Thus a good scientist would always have his own vote of non-confidence handy.
An animal rights activist on the other hand, would have a passion which he would like to educate the world about. Suppose for example, he felt it was his sole purpose to protect broiler chickens from slaughter. He would probably first condemn all people who eat chicken. Then he would lobby every firm who ever stepped within 100 yards of a chicken to change their chicken related policies. Next, this faux scientist might organize protests, complete with costumers dressed as hens forever silenced by the evil hungry person. If the activist really was bent on changing traditional views, he might even raid farms and liberate all chickens so they could be eaten by hungry foxes and wolves, thus catalyzing the completion of the "natural cycle of life". To complete the analogy of chickens, the only science animal rights activists might use, would be pre-existing one sided data claiming that eating chicken was bad for your health to promote his cause.
These steps listed above hardly constitute those of the scientific method, which aims to discover and prove. In fact, these steps don't even fit the views of a rational thinker. In this age of enlightened thinking, we must separate "heartfelt passion" from empirical fact. We can only then realize that civilization was not and will not be built on false hopes , feelings, and assumptions.
James