tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post8070908577100269026..comments2023-11-03T08:02:25.369-04:00Comments on AmericanScience: A Team Blog: Naturalist Spies!David Roth Singermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12841041983824755867noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-18007608922876727012011-02-22T14:10:07.181-05:002011-02-22T14:10:07.181-05:00Hi Hank --
I'm afraid I don't know enoug...Hi Hank -- <br /><br />I'm afraid I don't know enough about Boas to answer your question conclusively, or with any real authority. Maybe someone else knows? <br /><br />For what it's worth, my sense is that Boas was sympathetic with pacifism and opposed the United States' entry into the First World War. It is interesting to note that esp. after the publication of his letter to the editor of The Nation he was widely denounced as pro-Germany, owing to the fact that he was born and trained in Germany.<br /><br />As far as Conniff's NYT blog goes: I also have the sense that a defense of natural history is one of its unifying elements. In the face of e.g. irrelevance I'm totally on board, but in this case --international intrigue-- I'm afraid I beg to differ.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05686764806913124506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-62938764737959732912011-02-22T09:38:59.200-05:002011-02-22T09:38:59.200-05:00Re: Boas' letter: as if gathering intelligence...Re: Boas' letter: as if gathering intelligence is not part of a search for truth. The only question is with whom it will be shared and under what conditions.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14628656028300346518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-57405859863743146992011-02-22T09:17:57.535-05:002011-02-22T09:17:57.535-05:00Oops - I also have a question: do you think Connif...Oops - I also have a question: do you think Conniff presents the arrow between spies and naturalists as largely one-way (and, it would seem to you, the wrong way) on purpose? If you look back at some of his other columns in the series, you see (I think) a firm emphasis on the beauty, value, or just plain *virtue* of scientific work, even in the face of critique. <br /><br />If you look back at his post on <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/heroic-naturalists-or-imperialist-dogs/" rel="nofollow">naturalists and imperialism</a>, for example, you see the sort of rescue operation I'm referring to. While "Specimens" (his column in the NYT) is ostensibly, though perhaps not actually, as <a href="http://americanscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/specimens-in-new-york-times.html" rel="nofollow">I suggested earlier</a>, about "how species discovery has transformed our lives," might it actually be about defending natural history (and science in general) from charges as various as irrelevance and malefaction?Hankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02841787256060612291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-78282072175888026382011-02-22T09:10:46.078-05:002011-02-22T09:10:46.078-05:00Lukas: Does Boas comment on the involvement of sci...Lukas: Does Boas comment on the involvement of scientists in WWI more generally? That is, is it just espionage that runs counter to the ethos of science, or is it also the employ of a state at war that endangers the latter enterprise? I'd be curious to know (and can't be bothered to look it up), so help.Hankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02841787256060612291noreply@blogger.com