I don't know Tony, I bought an Italian coffee maker a couple of years ago
and it instructed me to "screw myself by hand." I'm still wondering about
that.
Steven
Dada is not dead
Watch your overcoat
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chiaviello, Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unreliable Web and fantasy cloning
Steve,
Again, you're outdoing yourself on your Web research. Frankly, I
don't know what the Italians are up to on cloning, but I do know that even
scientists in Italy, unlike Al Qaeda apparently, have access to competent
translators.
Shoddy translation is sufficient circumstantial evidence of shoddy
original work, as it reflects the originators lack of respect for their own
work such that they failed to see that it could be reproduced in another
language without sounding like gibberish. This is a rigorous position that
may not be ascribed to all in these days of imprecise language use.
I saw the story on Al Qaeda and their nuclear plans reported in the
NY Times at least a week before it became recognized as an example and
result of their absence of an ironic sense of humor. then the NYT reported
it again, as it appears in the source you cite. I wonder what the Onion has
done with it? See WWW.theonion.com.
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
> ----------
> From: Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Unreliable Web and fantasy cloning
> Steven Bissell here: I agree Tony, I only offered the second site to show
> that someone is thinking in that direction. Tracing it back indicates that
> it was a translation from Italian. http://digilander.iol.it which is
> probably why the syntax is so mangled.
>
> Aren't the Italians the ones involved with human cloning? The problem with
> Web citations is a big issue. Take a look at this article I post for my
> students. The point being that Web citations are difficult to trust, even
> those that purport to be from "referred journals."
>
> Nifty research, Steve!
> I checked both URLs: the Japanese situation still does not address
> the implantation of an embryo and full development of the fetus, and still
> places it 10 years out. It is aimed at "saving" fetuses, not procreating
> clones, I believe. But now we know they are working on the technical side,
> if only to develop a habitat for embryos/fetuses
> The second web site illustrates the problem with relying on the
> Web
> for reliable, valid information. From the way it is written, without
> sourcing and under no name, I would immediately place it in the fantasy
> column. There is no way to know the validity of the source, and the
> language
> is so garbled and unsyntactical that I would not attribute it to the
> kinds
> of careful scientists it would take to develop the concept. Reputable
> scientists are highly aware of the need for precision in language. This is
> an extremely dubious source. A word to the wise: rely only on refereed
> journal articles on this sort of topic Find any?
> -Tc
> Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> Department of English
> University of Houston-Downtown
> One Main Street
> Houston, TX 77002-0001
> 713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
> "Question Reality"
>
> > ----------
> > From: Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 4:27 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: cloning, GMO, and artificial wombs
> >
> > A passing comment Tony C. made a few weeks ago got me thinking. As I
> > remember Tony said that the technology to raise human outside of the
> human
> > uterus were remote. I got checking on this and found some interesting
> > stuff.
> > Seems that it isn't quite so unlikely, although as Tony said, it is
> > difficult.
> >
> > http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/Kloning/womb.html
> >
> > It seems that some feel that the use of artificial wombs in humans is
> > merely
> > a technological problem and will be resolved soon.
> >
> > http://digilander.iol.it/ffranceschi/midima/uterarte.html
> >
> > Given the reality of cloning, genetic engineering, and now the
> possibility
> > of artificial wombs, we are faced, if only in a theoretical sense, the
> > dilemma of figuring out whether or not these 'things' are moral agents,
> > and/or if we have moral responsibilities to them. I've always more or
> less
> > taken the position that evolutionary ecology should (could?) give us
> > direction for understanding or formulating moral rules and obligations.
> > But
> > this brave new world seems to be presenting us with all sorts of new and
> > difficult questions.
> >
> > The reason I got thinking about this was a short story about a round
> worm
> > who had been given a human brain. A bit far fetched, but interesting in
> > that
> > the author was asking whether we had the moral obligations to a human or
> > to
> > a round worm. I suspect that only some of this will get into the area of
> > applied ethics during my life-time, but it is interesting to think
> about.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > But the proper response to this hypothesis
> > is that there are always people willing to
> > believe anything, however implausible, merely
> > in order to be contrary.
> > Vikram Seth
> > A Suitable Boy
> >
>
|