quote:There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.
His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”
But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?”
But not everyone is happy with that approach. “People go somewhat bananas when they hear about this,” said Jon C. Boothroyd, a professor of geosciences at Rhode Island. [...]
Asked whether it was intellectually honest to write a dissertation so at odds with his religious views, he said: “I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history. I accepted that philosophy of science for the purpose of working with the people” at Rhode Island.
And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.”
Dr. Fastovsky said he had talked to Dr. Ross “lots of times” about his religious beliefs, but that depriving him of his doctorate because of them would be nothing more than religious discrimination. “We are not here to certify his religious beliefs,” he said. “All I can tell you is he came here and did science that was completely defensible.”
Steven B. Case, a research professor at the Center for Research Learning at the University of Kansas, said it would be wrong to “censor someone for a belief system as long as it does not affect their work. Science is an open enterprise to anyone who practices it.”
Dr. Case, who champions the teaching of evolution, heads the committee writing state science standards in Kansas, a state particularly racked by challenges to Darwin. Even so, he said it would be frightening if universities began “enforcing some sort of belief system on their graduate students.”
But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”
Dr. Dini, of Texas Tech, agreed. Scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,” he said. “That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”
I find it utterly ludicrous that this man is being denied his degree. He did the work, it was solid work. He met the requirements. There is no justification that I can see for withholding his doctorate.
I am not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope this man sues and I hope he wins.
(Edited to change the title, but I feel wrong removing stuff from the post itself, even when I feel like a doofus.)
[ February 13, 2007, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Okay, maybe I misread this, but it sounds to me like they didn't deny him his degree. They were saying it would be religious discrimination if they did. Then at the bottom some people at certain schools believe the prospective graduate students might be screened based on beliefs (so that their beliefs with the field/school's beliefs). At least that's how I took it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Hmmm. I think I may have misread it.
I guess I'm still wondering about the people who would like him to not have his degree. Why should they care what he believes privately, if he did the work required?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Does anyone else find it hilarious that his name is Dr. Ross and he is a paleontologist?
I also didn't read anything that led me to believe he was being denied a degree.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If Ross believes that he was lying to obtain his degree, that would very much imply that he intends to use his degree as a masque of credibility to camouflage his lies in the future.
[ February 13, 2007, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think he should be denied a degree. But I do think it permissible to hope that his head explodes from the cognitive dissonance.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No cognitive dissonance necessary. One could easily believe both that the Earth is young and that paleontology/astronomy/etc has much to teach about how the Creation works in the here and now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
EL, I read it last night. I just wanted to mull it over before responding. Thanks for the link!
kq, YES! Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Does anyone else find it hilarious that his name is Dr. Ross and he is a paleontologist?
Yeah, I laughed at that too.
It would seem pretty ridiculous to deny him his degree just because of what he believes. I think his explanation of different paradigms was quite good.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's ironic when those that would embrace the word "heretic" for themselves want to persecute heretics against their views -- and it's wonderful to see that this is as rare as it is. Some people quoted (Dr. Scott) should be ashamed of themselves, but in general, I think we're seeing praiseworthy people in this story, and on this thread.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Since they repeatedly refer to him as "Dr. Ross" in the article, it certainly seems like he was not denied his doctorate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Some people quoted (Dr. Scott) should be ashamed of themselves
Why? From the excerpt, she didn't appear to me to say anything wrong. What do you think she should be ashamed of?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Ashamed of refusing to admit students on the basis of them believing creationism. Frankly, I'd think any science educator should be ashamed if they refuse to admit students based on what beliefs those students hold.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you demonstrate where she said that?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
THat quote, taken alone, does not say that Dr. Scott thinks YECs shouldn't receive science PhDs. We don't know what she meant by views "so at variance with standard science."
The article makes it sound as if she means anyone with YEC views, because the paragraph starts with "But" and comes right after this:
quote:Steven B. Case, a research professor at the Center for Research Learning at the University of Kansas, said it would be wrong to "censor someone for a belief system as long as it does not affect their work. Science is an open enterprise to anyone who practices it."
Dr. Case, who champions the teaching of evolution, heads the committee writing state science standards in Kansas, a state particularly racked by challenges to Darwin. Even so, he said it would be frightening if universities began "enforcing some sort of belief system on their graduate students."
The "But" makes it sounds like she's in opposition to making science open to anyone who practices it, but we can't tell that from her quotation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As I understand it, true science should be completely agnostic of the scientist's beliefs. No matter what the individuals believe, true science can be duplicated by anybody with the necessary skills and knowledge. That's what makes it science.
It seems to me that anybody who wants to deny someone a degree because of their beliefs isn't defending real science, but a religion called Science.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
OK, I think I'm reading this wrong, but this sounds odd...
quote:Kansas, a state particularly racked by challenges to Darwin
Are they saying that Kansas challenges Darwin in that the state, itself, gives evidence that 'survival of the fittest' is wrong? Thereby saying that Kansas is obviously not the fittest, and yet somehow survives?
----------------
My only problem with Dr. Ross getting his Ph.D would be if he used his scientific status to preach the truth of EC. If he goes around saying "hey, I say Early Creation is true and I've got a PhD, so it must be true" then they should take it away (if that's even possible). On the other hand, if he keeps his religion and science seperate and doesn't use his scientific position to further any religous agendas he may have, why would there be any problem with it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The Kansas board of education recently outlawed the teaching of evolution in public (high?) schools.
quote:My only problem with Dr. Ross getting his Ph.D would be if he used his scientific status to preach the truth of EC.
So, do you think it's OK to deny somebody a degree because you don't like what he might do with that degree?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”
That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”
Entitled to consider does not in fact mean deny adminssion to all. She also gives her reason for saying this, that they would require a great deal of remedial work. I don't agree with this is necessarily true in all cases, but I think it is a legitimate concern that should be considered by admission commitees.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My only problem with Dr. Ross getting his Ph.D would be if he used his scientific status to preach the truth of EC. If he goes around saying "hey, I say Early Creation is true and I've got a PhD, so it must be true" then they should take it away (if that's even possible).
Yikes! I'm glad you don't actually make rules about these things.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree. Such a thing could be tremendously harmful to the progress of scientific thought.
Imagine a cantkanerous Einstein denying a degree to anybody who believed in quantum theory, because he disagreed with it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It's not a matter of making rules, but rather of enforcing professional standards. eg If a lawyer advises his clients to commit perjury, s/he can be disbarred. Yet get a degree, and there is no such thing as a procedure to retract that degree.
Get tenure at a secular college with a good reputation, and one can't even get fired for failure to do any work related to the reasons that one was hired. Or rather it's cheaper to pay out a million or two or three to bribe the slacker into giving up his position than it is to fight it out in the courts.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:So, do you think it's OK to deny somebody a degree because you don't like what he might do with that degree?
Not merely because I don't like it, but because the use will be dishonest. If a person gets a degree in any field, and then uses the status that that degree gives to teach things that are direct, or nearly so, opposites of what is taught in that program, I think it is dishonest and should not be accepted.
Specifically, Dr Ross could go to his local elementary school and give a lecture to the little science enthusiasts. He could tell them that he got a PhD and was a respected doctor and that in his schooling he found irrefutable proof that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. And the totts would more than likely believe him. I'm not saying that he would be wrong, per se, but he would be using dishonest tactics to further his agenda. I disagree with that.
It is possible that this was Ross's motive for getting the doctorate. It's a stretch, but possible, and if it were true, I would advocate removal of scientific status.
quote:Yikes! I'm glad you don't actually make rules about these things.
I'm fairly positive that very many people are very happy that I don't make the rules about very many things. And oh how they will rue the day.... mwah hah hah!
Editted to use correct name.
[ February 13, 2007, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If a lawyer advises his clients to commit perjury, he can be disbarred.
True, but it won't make him lose his law school diploma. The two are separate things.
You talk about professional standards -- that's a matter left to the organization of whatever profession he ends up in, but it has nothing to do with his PhD.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It seems to me that anybody who wants to deny someone a degree because of their beliefs isn't defending real science, but a religion called Science.
Wow, such a good and concise way to put it, mph. It sums up my views on this pretty well.
EDIT: One thing I'd ask you, vonk, is what about people who use their degree and position to go on a soapbox and speak about their beliefs (religious and political) that may not be related to their degree or may even be opposite to it? Do we want to remove all their degrees as well? I mean I seem to recall an awful lot of professors at my school going on rants unrelated to subject material, and many students just lapped it up because (s)he's the professor and has the fancy Ph. D. Do we take away these peoples degrees or whatever as well just because they may be abusing the prestige/respect their degree seems to imbue them with? To me, it just seems like censorship of beliefs to withhold a degree on the basis of beliefs not matching with the area of study.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not merely because I don't like it, but because the use will be dishonest. If a person gets a degree in any field, and then uses the status that that degree gives to teach things that are direct, or nearly so, opposites of what is taught in that program, I think it is dishonest and should not be accepted.
Albert Einstein taught things that were in direct opposition to the physics he was taught in school, and yet I doubt anybody thinks it was dishonest for him to do so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching the subject of the thread, it seems to me that comrade Ross does believe in his research. He'd be a doubleplusgood Ingsoc man, having apparently perfected the art of believing in two contradictory things simultaneously, and calling up the one he needs to believe in at any given moment according to context. "...to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed". He apparently believes in objective reality while doing science, and then forgets about it when he goes to church, which - come to think of it - describes a lot of theists; Ross is just an extreme case. However, his actual work is not affected by his personal beliefs; either he does good work that convinces others, and is thus a valuable scientist; or else he does shoddy "Creation-Science"-style stuff which fails of peer review and doesn't get published. Which would be a pity, since it would waste a lot of training time, but not everyone can get tenure. The point is, his actual work has to convince others who do not share his religious beliefs. If he manages to find evidence of a young earth, fine, more power to him. If not, he can still do useful work on dinosaurs.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
vonk, Scott =! Ross
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are different levels of opposition. Arguing a different theory using scientific epistemology is entirely different from rejecting that epistmeology.
---
That being said, I don't know that there is a respected organization out there that will censure a scientist merely for believing in creationism. There are a host of issues with professional ethics that many Christian activists cross the line on, but merely believing something would not fall into this category for any association I know of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not a matter of making rules, but rather of enforcing professional standards. eg If a lawyer advises his clients to commit perjury, s/he can be disbarred. Yet get a degree, and there is no such thing as a procedure to retract that degree.
There are no "professional" standards for scientist in the same way there are for lawyers, doctors, accountants, and engineers (among others), for the simple reason there isn't licensure. Certainly there are standards for scientists. But there isn't a government body to revoke one's right to be a scientist. There isn't a government-imposed monopoly on the practice of "science."
If a lawyer is disbarred and practices law, he can get in serious trouble.
If a scientist is kicked out of his university, or his credentials from an accrediting group are revoked, he can still be a scientist. He may have to be independently wealthy. He may not be able to be published. But he can still "do science" in much the same way a disbarred lawyer could do academic law.
quote:It is possible that this was Scott's motive for getting the doctorate. It's a stretch, but possible, and if it were true, I would advocate removal of scientific status.
Then they need to define "scientific status."
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:One thing I'd ask you, vonk, is what about people who use their degree and position to go on a soapbox and speak about their beliefs (religious and political) that may not be related to their degree or may even be opposite to it? Do we want to remove all their degrees as well? I mean I seem to recall an awful lot of professors at my school going on rants unrelated to subject material, and many students just lapped it up because (s)he's the professor and has the fancy Ph. D. Do we take away these peoples degrees or whatever as well just because they may be abusing the prestige/respect their degree seems to imbue them with? To me, it just seems like censorship of beliefs to withhold a degree on the basis of beliefs not matching with the area of study.
Oh no, of course not. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I would have no problem whatsoever, and would probably cheer him on for bravery if Dr Ross stood up and said that despite his study he still believes what he believes. Or if he preached any other belief without relation to his degree. The only problem I would have is if he used his degree to support ideas that it does not, in fact, support.
I don't believe in censoring. I have no problem with him saying, believing, shouting from the mountain tops anything he wants to, but if he says that it is a result of his research or schooling, I believe that would be dishonest and worthy of reprimand.
Editted to use correct name and for spelling.
[ February 13, 2007, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Albert Einstein taught things that were in direct opposition to the physics he was taught in school, and yet I doubt anybody thinks it was dishonest for him to do so.
Einstein, however, got his findings published in peer-reviewed papers, and convinced the world with experimental results. He did not use his position as Grand Old Man to stifle quantum mechanics, though perhaps he might have liked to. Instead, he went looking for a better theory. When he wasn't able to produce any evidence for his better theory, he shut up and let others get on with taking science in a direction he did not believe in.
To be fair, though, the article does not give us any grounds for saying that Ross is misusing his position in the way vonk suggests.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: vonk, Scott =! Ross
Haha! Woops, sorry. The letters are similar and I get confused. I meant to say Ross all the way through.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I take that back, he's apparently teaching "earth science" at Liberty University.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't believe in sensoring.
Personally, I like Star Trek.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There are different levels of opposition. Arguing a different theory using scientific epistemology is entirely different from rejecting that epistmeology.
quote:Einstein, however, got his findings published in peer-reviewed papers, and convinced the world with experimental results.
Exactly. So if we're going to define exactly what Ross may do that is so horrible as to deny him or revoke his PhD, it's got to be more than just teaching something in opposition to the current scientific thought.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
The NYT refers to him as "Dr. Ross," which means he holds the PhD.
Edit: Oops, already been said. *reads*
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't believe in sensoring.
Personally, I like Star Trek.
Har har. Fixed.
quote:Exactly. So if we're going to define exactly what Ross may do that is so horrible as to deny him or revoke his PhD, it's got to be more than just teaching something in opposition to the current scientific thought.
How about teaching something in opposition to the current scientific thought and either claiming that it is not in opposition or not specifying that it is in opposition. If Einstein introduced his new theories as if they were what he had learned in school, would that not be dishonest?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How about teaching something in opposition to the current scientific thought and either claiming that it is not in opposition or not specifying that it is in opposition.
As far as I can tell, there's zero indication that Dr. Ross has any intention or likelyhood of doing so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you might want to take a look at the curriculum of Liberty University.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:As far as I can tell, there's zero indication that Dr. Ross has any intention or likelyhood of doing so.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but everything I've been talking about has been a big 'if'. Specifically : "My only problem with Dr. Ross getting his Ph.D would be if..."
If he is not, then more power too him. Good for him for getting a PhD, it's not easy, especially if there are people out to stop you.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
This is an interesting look at a university similar in mission to Liberty:
quote:Patrick Henry’s president, Michael Farris, is a lawyer and minister who has worked for Christian causes for decades. He founded the school after getting requests from two constituencies: homeschooling parents and conservative congressmen. The parents would ask him where they could find a Christian college with a “courtship” atmosphere, meaning one where dating is regulated and subject to parental approval. The congressmen asked him where they could find homeschoolers as interns and staffers, “which I took to be shorthand for ‘someone who shares my values,’ ” Farris said. “And I knew they didn’t want a fourteen-year-old kid.” So he set out to build what he calls the Evangelical Ivy League, and what the students call Harvard for Homeschoolers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:As far as I can tell, there's zero indication that Dr. Ross has any intention or likelyhood of doing so.
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but everything I've been talking about has been a big 'if'. Specifically : "My only problem with Dr. Ross getting his Ph.D would be if..."
If he is not, then more power too him. Good for him for getting a PhD, it's not easy, especially if there are people out to stop you.
And here any fool can claim to be "God's Prophet" or even "God himself" and cite a degree in divinity from any seminary and the government does nothing!
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Tell ya what, I'll give 'im a freebie if he claims to be a dinosaur. But that's it!
Edit: Can you really not tell the difference between coming out of seminary and claiming to be god or god's prophet and coming out of seminary and claiming that during your schooling you learned that [something contradictory to what is taught in seminary]? If not I can draw correlations to the subject at hand.
Edited again for spelling.
Edited again to spell 'edited' correctly.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Which is precisely why sensible people are distrustful of self-proclaimed prophets, especially ones who manage to lose the items they've been given by angels. However, the main point being made is that science is supposed to be better than that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Tell ya what, I'll give 'im a freebie if he claims to be a dinosaur. But that's it!
Edit: Can you really not tell the difference between coming out of seminary and claiming to be god or god's prophet and coming out of seminary and claiming that during your schooling you learned that [something contradictory to what is taught in seminary]? If not I can draw correlations to the subject at hand.
Edited again for spelling.
Edited again to spell 'edited' correctly.
OH I can tell the difference. But its still a common occurrence to have ministers of any Christian sect teach patently false doctrine with their degrees as justification.
KOM: And here I thought you were so well behaved in this thread until that post.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Oh, well that is unfortunate.
Is seminary governed by the same body as universities?
Edit: Are universities governed by a body?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And here any fool can claim to be "God's Prophet" or even "God himself" and cite a degree in divinity from any seminary and the government does nothing!
I'm confused. Who said anything about the government doing anything?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Oh, well that is unfortunate.
Is seminary governed by the same body as universities?
Edit: Are universities governed by a body?
Only thing I can think of is that state boards of education can revoke accreditation if a university or college does not meet a standard of academic integrity. The standard varies from state to state I believe.
Mr S: "Government" is not so important as the "taking away their degree."
There are GOING to be ministers and scientists who use their degrees to back up their retarded and even harmful ideas. If we try to create some sort of official body that polices this, I fear we would throw out, "the baby with the bath water."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm confused. Who said anything about the government doing anything?
Vonk seems to think that somebody needs to make sure that nobody uses their degree wrongly and gets to keep it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
But its still a common occurrence to have ministers of any Christian sect teach patently false doctrine with their degrees as justification.
From the perspective of another sect many things could be seen as "patently false doctrine." This is as true of seminary educated clergy as it is of people who brag about the fact that their leaders do not have theology degrees.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
No
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Are universities governed by a body?
Only thing I can think of is that state boards of education can revoke accreditation if a university or college does not meet a standard of academic integrity. The standard varies from state to state I believe.
Nope. Accreditation is not granted by state boards of education, or any government body at all. Schools are accredited by regional accrediting agencies, such as Middle States and WASC. Schools must meet certain criteria and go through the accreditation process. Schools with existing accreditation are reviewed every few years (exact number depends on accrediting agency, number of years the school has been accredited, and how impressed (or not) the committee was the last go-round).
I can imagine a school being denied accreditation for failing to apply consistent standards to students, including religious discrimination. I cannot imagine a situation in which accreditation was denied (or refused) based on the actions of alumni.
While some states do also require certification of colleges by state agencies, most only do so for schools which are not accredited.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Vonk seems to think that somebody needs to make sure that nobody uses their degree wrongly and gets to keep it.
I don't see how that has anything to do with the government.
There are already standards and procedures in place in many colleges to do just that, revoke a person's degree that they issued. As far as I can tell, this is rarely done and is used only in cases of continuous extreme violations of integrity, but it does exist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Removing the government from what you said changes it greatly. If someone graduates from a seminary and then starts preaching contrary to the precepts of that seminary while acting in an offical capacity, many seminaries will revoke their degrees/qualifications. The government may do nothing (just as no one suggested that it do anything here), but the issuing institution or professional body it belongs to does sometimes take steps, which is again, what seems to me to be advocated here.
---
edit: Plus, I don't know, to me, when you make a clearly inaccurate claim about what someone is saying, it seems like the responsible thing to do is to acknowldge and apologize for it, not to say that it is not as important as another point.
You can totally return to that more significant point, but I think clearly away the false thing you said is important.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: If someone graduates from a seminary and then starts preaching contrary to the precepts of that seminary while acting in an offical capacity, many seminaries will revoke their degrees/qualifications.
Do you have anything at all to back that up?
A denomiantion that ordains, commissions, or licenses their clergy can revoke those credentials, but that is not the same as a degree being revoked. My academic degree is separate from (but a prerequsite to) my ordination, as is the case in most mainline denominations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squick, reign in your self-righteousness there. He didn't actually say that vonk wanted the government to do anything. When the possible misinterpretation was pointed out to him, he said the government wasn't important to his point.
The government action might change the point being made in your eyes, but it doesn't in BBs - most likely because he wasn't making the point you seem to be stuck on. Which means that most likely he's taking issue with retroactively removing someone's degree for actions taken after earning it.
He's flat out told you now that the government action wasn't central to his point.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Do you have anything at all to back that up?
Yes, I do. I did a google search beforehand to make sure that I was right.
Some quotes:
quote:The Council may revoke the Degree or Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and Distinctions of the University and all privileges connected therewith of any holder of the same for cause or whose name shall have been removed for misconduct by a properly constituted legal authority from any official register of members of the profession to which he belongs or whose conduct, in the opinion of the Council, shall constitute a breach of any agreement made with the University as a condition of the conferment of such degree or degrees, diplomas, certificates or distinctions.
quote:the seminary may move to revoke the offender’s degree
quote:Senate is the supreme governing body of the University in academic matters. It nominates the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellors to Council, and recommends the establishment of Faculties and Boards of Studies. It is Senate that grants degrees, and has the authority to revoke them
To be honest, I don't know of any specific case where this happened, but it is clear to me that some seminaries at the very least have the structure in place to do so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, And as I pointed out, BBs point is misplaced. Both seminaries and colleges already have procedures in place to revoke degrees in cases of severe dishonesty such as what vonk was talking about.
There was no call to put government in there and doing so significantly changes the point from an institution removing an official association with a person by exercising their legal right to do so to the government revoking degrees by fiat. As someone who often argues against government intervention, you seemed like someone who would appreciate the distinction.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Having the structure in place is different than "many seminaries will" do it. And none of your quotes say anything about "preaching contrary to the precepts of that seminary."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's possible I came down more strongly on BB because of the annoyance I felt at blatantly false claims that have been made throughout this discussion, like they denied him his degree or Dr. Scott said that we should deny all creationists entry. I dislike people making blatantly false claims, which seems to me to be a common thing when people start attacking academia.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw,
quote:And none of your quotes say anything about "preaching contrary to the precepts of that seminary."
Don't they? You said:
quote:A denomiantion that ordains, commissions, or licenses their clergy can revoke those credentials, but that is not the same as a degree being revoked.
One of my links said:
quote:The Council may revoke the Degree or Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and Distinctions of the University and all privileges connected therewith of any holder of the same for cause or whose name shall have been removed for misconduct by a properly constituted legal authority from any official register of members of the profession to which he belongs
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And to be clear, as vonk has clarified what he said, no one on this thread is saying that someone's degree should be revoked for believing or even, necessarily, teaching creationism, but rather for dishonesty. As I've pointed out, the structure and standards to do this already exist at many colleges.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I know of no denomination that revokes ordination for preaching contrary to what one was taught at seminary. The types of conduct that would invoke that clause are conduct -- financial misconduct, sexual misconduct, etc, not preaching.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Catholic church does. Kung comes to mind. edit: Wow, actually that's not true.
You're probably right. I didn't have enough knowledge to claim what I said. Sorry.
I still maintain that some seminaries will revoke degrees in cases of serious, continuing dishonesty.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Was his degree revoked?
Edit: *grin* I just looked it up too.
Second edit: Serious, continuing dishonesty related to the academic area one studied, probably. I've never heard of it happening, but I would hope it would. Or I could see it happening if it was later discovered that a substantial portion of the person's dissertation or thesis was plagarized, or something along those lines.
[ February 14, 2007, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Vonk seems to think that somebody needs to make sure that nobody uses their degree wrongly and gets to keep it.
Indeed, and has already been pointed out, government is not what I had in mind. Also, it appears that there are already mechanisms in place to protect the integrity of the PhD. That's good. Now I just hope the Dr Ross doesn't push the envelope too far and force that action.
Hmm, maybe not. I just reread this page of the thread, and forgive me if I missed it, but it looks like seminary schools have senates in place that can revoke degrees, but universities have accrediting agencies. The accrediting agencies only make sure that the school is reputable and will protect the integrity of their degrees, not enforce integrity, or reprimand gross lack integrity, once the degree has been granted.
So there is no mechanism in place to protect against Dr Ross blatantly spreading misinformation to further any agenda he may have. (misinformation not being creationism or anything else he believes, misinformation being that his PhD validates those beliefs (assuming, of course, that it doesn't))
Man, at this point in the discussion it really feels like I'm accusing Dr Ross of doing this, and I don't like that. I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing Dr Ross of anything, and I'm sure he's a nice guy and wouldn't dream of doing any of this. I'm just saying that if he did, I believe there should be a way of stopping him. [/disclaimer]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think so. Lying is not against the law. Fraud is, and specific kinds of lying are, but those are all subsets.
Revoking a given degree would be censorship. Censorship can always be made to look reasonable, but it's still a bad idea.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The fact that the man has a PhD and still believes "X" might validate that belief in some people's mind. Heck, the fact that Dr. Laura has a PhD in experimental physchology (running rats in mazes) seems to validate her opinions on relationships in some people's minds. If using your degree to make it sound like opinions not taught in your program of study are more credible is accademic dishonesty, hers should be revoked.
Edit to add: However, I agree with Kate. Teaching something contrary to what one was taught is not academic dishonesty, no matter what degree one holds.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Revoking a given degree would be censorship.
How so? They are not preventing the person from saying what they want. They are instead enforcing the ethical standards that the person agreed to as part of the degree process.
The colleges that I'm talking about do not give degrees unconditionally, but instead specifically reserve the right to revoke degrees in specific cases where a person is continuing to commit severe infractions of the ethical standards that they agreed to.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I don't understand how it's censorship. He can say whatever he wants too, I just don't think he should be able to use URI's name to back up what he's saying, if they don't back it up.
I'm thinking of it like this: Say I know pretty much all there is to know about Star Wars, and all of my friends and acquaintances know it. So one of my friends comes over for a few beers and we spend all night talking about the glory that is Star Wars (the original three, of course). The next day, this friend goes out to a group of our friends and tells them that he has learned from me that the Ewoks were actually part of an Empirical conspiracy to trap Luke's gang. I do not think it would be censorship or anything of the like if I went out and stopped him from using my name to purport these ideas.
I see the university as having the same responsibility. To go out and stop him from using their name (PhD) to purport his ideas. He can have the ideas and teach them to everyone for all I care, but he shouldn't be able to use any outside source in a malicious or dishonest way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
DKW, that's what I was thinking. People flash credentials all the time to give support to things that are tangential, at best. Singling out this guy for the treatment is a very specific kind of censorship. Singling out only him or only this topic would be egregious discrimination, and making it a blanket policy that people with PhDs can only regurgitate what they had been taught in school or else lose their degree is a horrible idea.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Teaching something contrary to what one was taught is not academic dishonesty, no matter what degree one holds.
No, but teaching something contrary to what one was taught and claiming that it is not contrary, or intentionally allowing people to believe that it is not contrary, is academic dishonesty.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, Dr. Laura holds no degrees in psychology. She has a PhD is Physiology, which has even less to do with what she talks about than experimental psych.
---
I and I think everyone else on this thread agree that teaching something different from what yuo were taught isn't necessarily bad or academic dishonesty. I don't think that's what kat was saying though. She seemed to me to be talking about lying, which, when done in this professional context, generally does constitute academic dishonesty.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So one of my friends comes over for a few beers and we spend all night talking about the glory that is Star Wars (the original three, of course). The next day, this friend goes out to a group of our friends and tells them that he has learned from me that the Ewoks were actually part of an Empirical conspiracy to trap Luke's gang. I do not think it would be censorship or anything of the like if I went out and stopped him from using my name to purport these ideas.
Sure it would be. There could be specific kinds of fraud that would be against the law, and if you made money as an Ewok expert he could be damaging your livelihood, but in general, lying is not against the law.
Even if he prefaced it with: "As an expert in Ewoks, having been tutored by vonk, I can tell you that the Ewoks are part of an Empire conpsiracy.", it still isn't something you could censor. All of that would be true.
quote:teaching something contrary to what one was taught and claiming that it is not contrary, or intentionally allowing people to believe that it is not contrary, is academic dishonesty.
WHat you are saying is that a PhD would then not only bring a degree but restrictions on free speech with it. I think that's a terrible idea.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Singling out this guy for the treatment is a very specific kind of censorship. Singling out only him or only this topic would be egregious discrimination, and making it a blanket policy that people with PhDs can only regurgitate what they had been taught in school or else lose their degree is a horrible idea.
And, again, no one on this thread or in at least the excerpt fo the article posted is saying anything like this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:lying is not against the law.
Academic ethics cover many, many situations far beyond what is legal/illegal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*waits for vonk to reply*
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:but in general, lying is not against the law
Well I don't want anyone thrown in jail. I know it isn't against the law. I don't want to sue the guy. I don't think the gov't should have anything to do with it. It is academic dishonesty, so the academy should deal with it. They gave him the degree, they should have the right to take it away if they feel he is doing damage to the university, the profession or the ideas that uphold the status of a PhD.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:WHat you are saying is that a PhD would then not only bring a degree but restrictions on free speech with it. I think that's a terrible idea.
when acting in a professional capacity, a doctor cannot give advice that he knows will be detrimental to his patient. A lawyer, in certain professional contexts, cannot say things that he knows aren't true.
Is this also restricting free speech? Are there differences between those and this situation?
There are ethical constraints put on people when they act in professional contexts. In this case, they agreed to these constraints as part of getting their degree. I don't see why this is a problem.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Oy. Not restricting free speech. The speech is not restricted. He can speek all he wants too, about whatever he wants too, but as soon as he says, or intentionally allows others to believe, that what he is speeching is advocated by the school or institution that gave him his PhD, and we're assuming that it is not advocated, he is doing damage to the school, the profession, and the ideas that uphold the status of the PhD and they should have the right to remove their name from association with the mistruth. But he can still talk about it. He can still claim that URI taught him everything he knows about YEC, but he wouldn't have the documentation, or the offical support of the school to back him up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:They gave him the degree, they should have the right to take it away if they feel he is doing damage to the university, the profession or the ideas that uphold the status of a PhD.
I'm uncomfortable with this amount of control. In essense, it would mean that no degree is ever ended - that one must prove one's worthiness for it constantly. It would more of a license than a degree.
Some professions do require licenses, like engineers or doctors or lawyers. Right now, scientists don't - they need the degree. What you're proposing is changing science and academia into a profession that requires a professional license.
Given a profession that hands out tenure in order to ensure that professors will feel free to challenge the prevailing wisdom, I don't see changing it into a licensed profession happening. I don't think that it should.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As someone who often argues against government intervention, you seemed like someone who would appreciate the distinction.
I did appreciate it. I appreciated it when you clarified, because I was going to myself, and I appreciated it when BB responded by removing government from his point.
As an aside, I also refrained from going into the public university = state action digression because there are probably only 2 people interested.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Vonk, I think it's a little inaccurate to say they're not restricting speech. We very seldom think of censorship or speech restriction as actually stopping someone from speaking. Rather, they're thought of as penalizing people - jail, fines, kicked off the football team, etc. - who say things we don't want them to say.
The question is whether the restriction is justified, not whether it's happening. There's no doubt that the threat of degree revocation is serious enought to cause someone to refrain from speaking.
To the extent saying certain things will result in degree revocation, the university is attempting to restrict speech. Some will say that such restrictions are justified based on the importance of not allowing the degree's credibility to be misused. Others won't. But it's still a restriction.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Ok, your right, he would be punished, and therefor his speach would be restricted by the fear of punishment. And I can see how this type of reprimand could easily snowball into a horrible situation where any number of people are unfairly penalized.
But I still don't think that anyone should be able to use an advanced degree to intentionally spread information that that degree not only doesn't agree with, but fairly rejects out of hand.
If Dr Ross says "Hi, I have a PhD from URI and I can tell you for a fact that during my studies I found definite evidence to prove that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" I think it would be wrong and something should be done about it. Obviously, I don't have the best ideas as to what should be done, but I do believe something should be. Maybe URI puts out a press release rejecting any mistruths. I dunno, but something.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know that I agree with that, although I am getting somewhat uncomfortable with what I think is the extent of control that vonk is suggesting.
The restriction we're talking about isn't on specific speech, but rather on a certain ethical code that the person is breaking by their speech. As I said, in your professional capacity, you cannot say things that you know to be untrue in certain contexts without risking censure. Is this restricting free speech in a similar way? If so, why would this be supportable but the university's actions, which, as I've pointed out, they specifically reserve the right to do and have a legal right to do, not?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I am getting somewhat uncomfortable with what I think is the extent of control that vonk is suggesting.
What, so I should cancel the order for electric shock collars that give a heavy jolt each time anyone with a degree, political office or making more than, oh, say, 75k a year lies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I said, in your professional capacity, you cannot say things that you know to be untrue in certain contexts without risking censure. Is this restricting free speech in a similar way?
I think so. I think it's justified, of course, but it's definitely a restriction.
There are many restrictions on saying things that I know to be true as well. There are even restrictions on expressing my opinions. For example, a prosecutor may not state that a defendant is guilty, yet we hopes he believes it to be true.
quote:If so, why would this be supportable but the university's actions, which, as I've pointed out, they specifically reserve the right to do and have a legal right to do, not?
Because vonk's initial description doesn't come close to providing sufficient details to justify the extreme sanction he proposed.
I haven't said anything about the idea of degree revocation being per se wrong. Vonk's suggested form, however, is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If Dr Ross says "Hi, I have a PhD from URI and I can tell you for a fact that during my studies I found definite evidence to prove that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" I think it would be wrong and something should be done about it. Obviously
Maybe in his studies he did find evidence which, to him, definitely proves that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Just because his teachers disagree about that evidence or the interpretation of it doesn't make that claim false.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Vonk's suggested form, however, is [wrong].
Burn! Well, at least I know who to ask when I need to know for sure if something is right or wrong. (<-- snarky way of saying that my "suggested form" was an opinion, and one that I pretty much still agree with, and don't believe to be wrong.)
quote:Maybe in his studies he did find evidence which, to him, definitely proves that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Just because his teachers disagree about that evidence or the interpretation of it doesn't make that claim false.
Well, if that's the case, then more power to him. I was specifically refering to "mistruths", "dishonesty" and "misinformation". What you refer to would be controversial findings, but not lying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It does, acctually, as far as scientific standards are concerned. That's what peer review means. If your evidence does not convince other people, it isn't evidence at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't agree with that. Evidence that doesn't get through peer view because of methodological errors is one thing. Evidence that other people just don't find convincing but don't have a problem with the method you used to arrive at it is just fine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What you refer to would be controversial findings, but not lying.
I'm referring to the exact same thing you were reffering. I'm just not making the automatic assumption that he's lying.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Well, my whole case was based on the assumption that he's lying (in a completely hypothetical situation). If he weren't then I wouldn't be making a case. I probably oughta stop making a case anyways.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For example, a prosecutor may not state that a defendant is guilty
You mean the teevee LIED to me?!?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Burn! Well, at least I know who to ask when I need to know for sure if something is right or wrong. (<-- snarky way of saying that my "suggested form" was an opinion, and one that I pretty much still agree with, and don't believe to be wrong.)
Of course you don't. I assume you wouldn't be making it if you did.
I disagree and posted to say so, and gave the reason why. That's not a burn, that's a discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If Dr Ross says "Hi, I have a PhD from URI and I can tell you for a fact that during my studies I found definite evidence to prove that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" I think it would be wrong and something should be done about it. Obviously, I don't have the best ideas as to what should be done, but I do believe something should be. Maybe URI puts out a press release rejecting any mistruths. I dunno, but something.
Even here, I'm not sure why they should take away something he earned with his work. What you're suggesting is a bit of an implication that, to study at one university and obtain a degree, should also entail a lifelong professional loyalty to certain ideas espoused by the university.
That's not science, even when the ideas being criticized by the doctor are scientific, and his evidence against them is not. I'm much more comfortable letting survival of the fittest maintain control here, rather than doing something that compels graduates to toe the party line or risk their degree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What you're suggesting is a bit of an implication that, to study at one university and obtain a degree, should also entail a lifelong professional loyalty to certain ideas espoused by the university.
That's not what vonk is saying as has been pointed out numerous times as people keep bringing it up.
vonk is specifically talking about a hypothetical situation where the person is lying.
Since this is the top of the page, I'll put it in for emphasis. vonk is only talking about cases where the guy is lying. Not disagreeing with what he was taught or coming up with different things other than what he was taught or not toeing the lie, but lying.
[ February 14, 2007, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't agree with that. Evidence that doesn't get through peer view because of methodological errors is one thing. Evidence that other people just don't find convincing but don't have a problem with the method you used to arrive at it is just fine.
I would have to agree, but I think your second case is quite entirely hypothetical, so I don't think it contradicts my point.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Thanks MrSquicky
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
The root of the problem is the assumption that someone with a phd knows what they are talking about. Thats a terrible assumption, unless you have something to back it up and the degree alone shouldn't be. If we were to really feel that this problem needs a solution, this assumption is the place to start; revoking degrees should the last step.
Its a big line to cross. Who decides when there is enough evidence? The public? Scientific Peers (that may have been scooped in the past, or what if there really aren't any?)
If this is such a issue, why don't we see this more with M.D.s hawking herbal supplements and diet pills on TV?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:vonk is specifically talking about a hypothetical situation where the person is lying.
He says that, but then he keeps coming up with examples of misconduct which don't necessarily involve lying.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Lying about what? Science? Their taxes? How is lying related to having earned a degree sometime in the past?
All the degree says is that at the time it was earned, the recipient had completed all of the requirements. It doesn't mean that the school backs up everything the person ever does or says. Even if they use their degree as proof. It just means that you won't find these people in the list of famous alumni.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If this is such a issue, why don't we see this more with M.D.s hawking herbal supplements and diet pills on TV?
It's a very different situation with M.D.s. M.D.s have to have a license to practice medicine, which can (and is) revoked for misconduct. Although, misconduct won't get their medical school degree revoked.
You don't have to have a license to practice science/academics.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, he doesn't. You are reading it as such because you aren't applying his and my statements that all of the cases he is talking about involve the person lying.
when vonk says "And the guy claims X." he is not talking about all cses where the guy claims X, but rather applying his already stated general class - guy is lying - to this specific case. So, guy is lying about his claims of X.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
KoM, I agree that the second case would be vanishingly rare, but stating it the way you did plays right into the anti-academic prejudices ("consensus science") that people bring up in cases like this, so I thought it was important to delineate the theory. That is, the validity of scientific evidence rests in methodological soundess and not in how many people believe it. In a perfect world, I think there would be close to a one-to-one correspondence between these things, but they are not actually equivilent.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I don't know how people are defining lying in this thread. I was thinking about this and thought maybe we could clarify it some. For me, saying "I have a degree in X and I believe Y (where Y is a contradiction of X to some degree)" isn't a lie. Saying "I have a degree in X and it supports my belief in Y (where again Y is a contradiction of X to some degree)" is a lie. The first case seems similar to the aforementioned MDs hawking herbal supplements or other people trying to use their upper level degrees to make it seem like they do know what they are talking about. It's not lying so much as a sort of false pretense or something. The second case though is definitely lying.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Saying "I have a degree in X and it supports my belief in Y (where again Y is a contradiction of X to some degree)" is a lie.
Not necessarily.
In earning degree X, he may have learned information Z which, to him, supports belief Y, even thouh most people with degree X disagree that it supports Y at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm working from his own words, Mr. Squicky. They hinge on some sort of certainty that he's lying, based not on some sort of confession, but because (in the case I quoted, 'definite evidence) his claims don't match up with scientific scrutiny.
So I'll ask again: if he said that, obviously he would not be taken seriously by an (I imagine) overwhelming majority of scientists everywhere. So...why the assertion of lifelong control over graduates, exactly?
The guy put an awful lot of time, effort, and possibly even money into achieving that degree. By what moral right (or even legal) does the university take away the reward of those efforts, unless he agrees to a lifelong code of conduct prior to starting work there, exactly?
He earned that degree. It's his now, not theirs.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I was assuming it was about the information pertinent to X being in contradiction to Y, rather than the other people with X disagreeing with Y. I guess that's what I get for assuming though. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:They hinge on some sort of certainty that he's lying, based not on some sort of confession, but because (in the case I quoted, 'definite evidence) his claims don't match up with scientific scrutiny.
I don't see where vonk said anything of the sort. Could you show me where he said that?
quote:unless he agrees to a lifelong code of conduct prior to starting work there
As I've stated numerous times in this thread, the universities who have procedures in place to revoke degrees in the case of severe, continuing violations of the professional ethics are upfront about this. People do agree to this as part of attending these institutions.
It may be his degree, but it is their name and reputation that he is using. They have a right to protect that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Does this university have such a policy, then? If so, what exactly is the argument about? That the university should do what is in it's power to do?
quote:I don't see where vonk said anything of the sort. Could you show me where he said that?
quote:vonk is specifically talking about a hypothetical situation where the person is lying.
You said it yourself too, Mr. Squicky. These hypotheticals hinge on the certainty that he is lying beforehand.
quote:It may be his degree, but it is their name and reputation that he is using. They have a right to protect that.
Wouldn't it be equally well-protected if they issued a press release stating unequivocally, "We do not believe x things, and think he is mistaken."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, You went a little beyond the lying aspect by saying:
quote:based not on some sort of confession, but because (in the case I quoted, 'definite evidence) his claims don't match up with scientific scrutiny
I'm asking where you got that from.
---
In this specific case, no one is saying that the guy should even be censured. It doesn't look like he has doen anything that fits into what was being said. vonk has gone out of his way to say that. We're talking about hypotheticals.
quote:Wouldn't it be equally well-protected if they issued a press release stating unequivocally, "We do not believe x things, and think he is mistaken."
Of course not, because, as I mentioned numerous times, in all of the cases I know of for this, the criteria for revoking a degree includes that the ethical violations be continuing as well as egregious. It is not a matter of a signle case.
When someone is continuously using your name and reputation to grant legitimacy to his ethically unsound actions and beliefs, officially withdrawing your association seems to me to be the only effective course.
You're going to miss refutations and even in the ones you catch, there is going to be a lag (and often lesser amounts of attention) between his ethical transgression and your response.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The guy put an awful lot of time, effort, and possibly even money into achieving that degree. By what moral right (or even legal) does the university take away the reward of those efforts, unless he agrees to a lifelong code of conduct prior to starting work there, exactly?
He earned that degree. It's his now, not theirs.
I disagree, I think. The skill and experience he acquired are his, and cannot be taken away short of death. The knowledge he produced belongs to all humanity, in accordance with our code, which publishes all findings. But the degree is a recognition, by the university he attended, that he is worthy of entry into the guild of scientists; and such worth can be lost by misconduct. It's not easy to do so, it's true; I think genuine cheating is probably the only real way to get kicked out. Still, it can be done.
In this particular case, I don't think he should lose his degree, even if he does use it to support creation "science". Truth is truth, there's a limit to how much defense it needs. Even if he does preach his degree to the choir of YECs, who cares? The kind of person who points to "Doctor X, who has a degree in Y" as proof for a young earth will anyway not be convinced by anything short of their own investigation. Besides, there are, I suspect, plenty of people who use a degree in sociology to shore up their position on government intervention, or gun control, or whatever; are we going to censor them, too?
Another practical concern: Supposing he were stripped of his degree, wouldn't that just make him a martyr, and all the more effective for that? "I earned a degree, but when I found evidence of a Young Earth, I was kicked out!" The last thing we need is more people who believe in Science As Conspiracy Against God!
Leave the man be. Peer review what he publishes. Contradict whatever nonsense he spouts, making sure to point out that his papers all assume an old earth. (After all, the charge of 'liar' can cut two ways!) The truth will out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I should make clear I don't think that people should be censured except for things they do within their professional capacity. When he is not specifically putting on the scientist mantle, I don't think anything he does or says is up for the college or whatever to take official action on.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
It seems inferred from 'definite evidence' to me is all. What else would 'definite evidence' mean? That's what I was thinking, anyway.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
vonk has made several statements detailing what he means by this. Here's an example:
quote:So there is no mechanism in place to protect against Dr Ross blatantly spreading misinformation to further any agenda he may have. (misinformation not being creationism or anything else he believes, misinformation being that his PhD validates those beliefs (assuming, of course, that it doesn't))
These statements have specifically noted that the theorteically lying person would be saying things about their education that just aren't true. vonk has preseneted a situation where the guy is knowingly saying things that aren't true in order to advance his agenda. From my perspective, and his confirmations of my perspective, he has been very clear about this, despite people's claims that he is saying some other, much more easily attackable things.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think what bugs me is the fact that its near IMPOSSIBLE to prove that what somebody proposes as true, they already know to be false.
But even if we could prove that a scientist or a theologian is lying, where would we go from there? Its true that there may be merit to revoking their license, perhaps even their degree, but as a practicality I don't think its possible to effectively prove any of this in the first place, so it is not worth the risk that human error IMO. Better 99 stupid theologians or scientists be allowed to spout their nonsense then one person unfairly have their life tarnished with an unreasonable revocation of their degree/license.
As such, we are obligated to let dishonest scientists or theologians go around doing as they please, and combat them by letting their honest constituents present their findings for rationale people to scrutinize.
The downside to this is we lose some simple minded people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, well you're going to have to explain the difference between what I said-lack of scientific confirmation-and what vonk is saying, that his degree supports creationism...which would lack definite scientific evidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have no idea why that would be relevant to what vonk or I am saying. Could you show how that addresses my most recent post?
To assist, here is the most important part:
quote:vonk has preseneted[sic] a situation where the guy is knowingly saying things that aren't true in order to advance his agenda.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:vonk has preseneted a situation where the guy is knowingly saying things that aren't true in order to advance his agenda.
And how do we know he does not believe those things to be true? For example, if he were to say, "During my studies, I came to believe the following..." how are we going to say he's lying without using the criticism, "There's no definite scientific evidence to support your claim."?
That is what this boils down to, unless he starts to say, "The University believes xyz," when in fact they believe abc.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:For example, if he were to say, "During my studies, I came to believe the following..."
This is a poor example. What someone believes doesn't enter into this, only what they can validly show support for. You example is not described by what vonk has said.
Rather, it would be more like, "During my studies, I found a lot of evidence that validly supports, from a scientific perspective, X." when they were exposed to no evidence that could validly be said to support X. It would be even more clear if the person saying this went into specifics.
Scientific epistemology is very useful in that statements like the above are acutally available for semi-objective analysis. There are rules as to what evidence can and cannot be said to support.
This is actually one of the big areas where many Christian activists get themselves into trouble and get censured and even thrown out of professional organziations because they constantly violate the ethical boundaries of what they can claim and/or falsify evidence in order to support these claims.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rather, it would be more like, "During my studies, I found a lot of evidence that validly supports, from a scientific perspective, X." when they were exposed to no evidence that could validly be said to support X. It would be even more clear if the person saying this went into specifics.
That's basically what I was saying all along.
And as for rules...who makes them? I agree, there is no valid scientific evidence to support a young earth belief. In fact, I don't even believe in a young earth myself. I'm just very, very wary of universities getting (more, perhaps) into the business of saying that unless their graduates follow the 'rules of science' in their roles as scientists forever, they'll be losing their degree.
Yes, I know there are actually quite a lot of concrete rules of science for what is and isn't validly supported. No, I am not comfortable with anything except the weight of those rules themselves censuring scientists. I don't think the rules need help. I suppose I'm laissez-faire about this particular issue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No, I am not comfortable with anything except the weight of those rules themselves censuring scientists.
I don't understand how these rules would do this.
Let's take a concrete example that we talked about here before. One of the "scientists" in the anti-gay christian movement published results of studying molestation cases. He showed that a large majority of cases that he came across involved the adult male molesting a male child. He published his findings as saying that homosexual men molest children at a much higher rate. He also pushed this conclusion and others used this as justification for laws baning gays from adopting. This type of behavior characterizes a lot of the "research" that this guy does.
How would the rules censure him? Do you disagree with the decisions of the APA and ASA to first remonstrate with him, then censure, and then throw him out? Do you think they should have not done anything and let him continue to violate their ethical principles and use his status as a active member to legitimize what he was saying?
To me, these organazitions exist in lage part to enforce standards. Them failing to do so would effectively destroy their usefullness and desireability.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm sorry, I spoke incorrectly. I only meant that as far as the specific university taking action...not that there should be no rules. Organizations such as the two you named are different, because he joined them and they had I imagine some very clear-cut, pre-explained rules and regulations and customs.
But to my knowledge, he wasn't issued a degree by either body.
My point is just this: to those who believe in science, and trust it, the rules of science and whether they're followed or not will win out...and those who don't are going to believe in 'findings' which support their own pre-existing conclusions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:to those who believe in science, and trust it, the rules of science and whether they're followed or not will win out...and those who don't are going to believe in 'findings' which support their own pre-existing conclusions.
I think the current climate scientific "controversies" like Evolution/ID, global warming, or the things people claim about gay people demonstrates that this is somewhat naive. To me, there is a strong need for intellectual integrity and scientific rigor to be aggressively pursued and to a certain extent, enforced. (edit: In my own experience, this is something that even practicing scientists need. There have been many times where I've needed to tear into what a colleague was telling me because it lacked these. There have even been tiems where I've needed this done to me. They can be hard paths to follow exactly and many people don't seem to me to understand what they even are.)
---
I disagree with the college's rights, as does U.S. law. I think we're at an impasse there. I should again emphasize that the revokation of a degree is an extremely rare occurence and that I believe that this is the way it should be.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I find it utterly ludicrous that this man is being denied his degree. He did the work, it was solid work. He met the requirements. There is no justification that I can see for withholding his doctorate.
I am not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope this man sues and I hope he wins.
I didn't see any evidence in the article that this man's doctorate has been withheld. In fact, he is referred to throughout the articel as "Dr. Ross", indicating that he has received his doctorate
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That point has been made multiple times. The question is now whether the university should have the power to revoke it if he does some hypothetical things that no one here is saying he has or will.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
If this is truly his position, then I can't understand why his dissertation and degree are at all controversial.
I think most scientist hold some spiritual, religious or ethical beliefs that they know can not be verified by the scientific method. Most scientists would agree that there are different paradigms for knowing and understanding the world. This man is certainly a very extreme case since his religious beliefs are in such clear contradiction to his science, but scientists who accept non-scientific paradigms as a valid way to understand the world are widespread.
The difficulties arise when someone claims that young earth creationsim, intelligent design or yet some other religious/spiritual/ethical claim are verifiable within the scientific paradigm. I would consider it highly unethical if Dr. Ross were to change his tune once receiving a Ph.D. and claim that the methods he used for dating materials as a scientist were faulty and that the scientific data really suggest a 10,000 year old earth. If he continues the stance that science leads to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old but that he considers the Bible a higher authority than science, I really can't see any objection.
As for whether or not the University should be able to rescind his degree if he uses it unethically, that's an obsurd suggestion. Countless numbers of people use their degrees in every field unethically. A degree isn't a professional license. It is awarded to those who have met the requirements and is not a contract for future compliance to a professional code. If a medical doctor violates medical ethics, he may loose his license but his degree is not rescinded. A degree should only be rescinded if there is evidence that the requirements for the degree had never been met.
[ February 14, 2007, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: That is actually a good point, the fact that a Ph.D. degree is just earned when the student has completed the requirements, it doesn't have any relationship with whether they have thought through what they have studied, or even whether they're going to be a good professor. For any student that has been through university, it is clear that simply being a professor does not make one good at teaching, let alone be a good professor.
It seems clear that a student that believes in young earth creationism and yet still manages to memorise enough material to get their degree has earned it. Much in the same way that a student that believes in a religion that states something absurd like 1=2, yet manages to memorise and apply arithmetic can pass kindergarten. Or using (BlackBlade? not sure) someone else's analogy, that someone who believes in Satanism (yet manages to learn the material) should be allowed to pass through a Christian seminary and gain the academic credentials to potentially become a priest.
The only question is whether they'd be *good* professors or priests. A professor that managed to get get a PhD yet teaches that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago should be respected just as much as a priest that has credentials from a Christian seminary, yet preaches Satanism. Which is to say, not a heck of a whole lot.
However, neither should lose their degrees (and neither should be sent to the Inquisition for that matter).
Another issue that I can think of is if their religious beliefs posed a danger to society. Say, you had a job open at a nuclear research facility, and one of the candidates was someone that believed that Armageddon was required for the Second Coming of Jesus, then I'd feel fully prepared to deny them a job in control of a nuclear reactor.
I cannot really think of a parallel for the religion-side of the analogy.
I guess that is the big problem with the parallel between scholars from universities and priests from seminaries. While the "right" creations of scientists are medicines that heal or technology that expands our minds, the "wrong" creations such as chemical warfare or napalm bombs still *do* something and should be monitored in some form. However, regardless of whether a theologians beliefs are "right" or "wrong", they do not really *do* anything at all. So there is no need to monitor them at all. *shrug*
Edit to fix word mixup
[ February 14, 2007, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is a counter example.
Today I was offered the possibility of a better paying job with a company that sells advertisements in church directories.
Should I take this job? I would be working out of the churches themselves, though I am not a Christian. I believe that those who would purchase the advertisements are getting value for their money, just as I believe that the churches themselves are getting value for using my services. Yet, since I do not believe in their faith, am I a hypocrite? Should I be hired?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: That is actually a good point, the fact that a Ph.D. degree is just earned when the student has completed the requirements, it doesn't have any relationship with whether they have thought through what they have studied, or even whether they're going to be a good professor.
First, the requirements for receiving a Ph.D. are qualitatively different from those for any other degree. To obtain a Ph.D., a person must write a dissertation that is a substantial contribution to their field and (at least in the US system) they must defend this dissertation to a committee of experts in their field. If the Ph.D. candidate cannot quickly provide cogent answers to probing questions posed by the committee, they aren't going to get their Ph.D. It would be virtually impossible for anyone to meet this requirement without having thought through what they have studied.
Second, Getting a Ph.D. is not preparation for being a professor in the same sense that getting an M.D. is preparation for being a physician or getting a J.D. is preparation for being a lawyer. Only a very small fraction of Ph.Ds become professors. Getting a Ph.D. makes you a scholar, it doesn't make you a professor.
Finally, Analogies that compare the training for the priesthood with the training of scientists are fundamentally flawed. In science, one is trained to be objective. Ones personal beliefs are supposed to be irrelevant. Scientific conclusions should be independent of the biases and beliefs of the researchers and when one is trained in science, one is trained to be able to make conclusions that are objective. While scientists may not always achieve this goal of objectivity, objectivity is the ultimate goal. Within science, the personal beliefs of the researcher are supposed to be irrelevant. To ask a scientist whether they "believe" a particular theory is to leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy.
In contrast, ones personal beliefs or faith are the core of most religions. Religion isn't supposed to be objective. It revolves around a persons inner commitment to a system of belief. In Chrisitanity in particular, faith not objective skepticism is the goal.
Scientist are supposed to doubt their findings. Priests are supposed to have faith in their religions.
[ February 14, 2007, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A professor that managed to get accredited yet teaches that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago.
Professors aren't accredited. Universities and degree programs are accredited. A paleotology department that tought that the earth was 10,000 years old, would and should loose its accreditation.
Once again, a Ph.D. is not preparation for becoming a Professor. It is not accreditation. It is not a license. It is a degree. It says that you have not only mastered your field but that you have made a significant contribution to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A) "Virtually impossible": Evidentially Dr. Ross managed to get his Ph.D. without thinking it through. I somehow doubt that he is the only one. Virtually impossible, maybe, but not impossible.
B) "Ph.D do not prepare for being profs": Sure, which is why I had the example of a PhD working at a nuclear research facility.
C) "Accredited" Sorry, typo. I think I read the term above and got mixed up. Substitute "their degree".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A) "Virtually impossible": Evidentially Dr. Ross managed to get his Ph.D. without thinking it through. I somehow doubt that he is the only one. Virtually impossible, maybe, but not impossible.
What make you think that Dr. Ross didn't think it through. The comments I've read of his indicate that he most certainly has thought it through. He very clearly understands that the results and conclusions of his scientific studies contradict his religious beliefs. The fact that he is able to live with that contradition is not proof that he hasn't thought about it.
I would say that the fact that he was able to produce a solid scientific thesis which contradicts his religious beliefs is evidence that he has become a competent objective scientist. A scientist's job is to report the conclusions which are best supported by experimental data while continueing to be skeptical of those conclusions.
The answer to the question posed in this thread's title, should be obvious to anyone properly trained in scientist. A scientist needs to be skeptical of his/her research for it to be valid. A scientist should be confident that his/her results are accurate and that his/her conclusions are supported by the best available scientific evidence. At the same time, a scientist should never believe that her/his conclusions are absolute truth and should continue to push the frontiers by challenging those conclusions.
Furthermore, I think that scientist's commonly live with cognitive dissonance even within the scientific paradigm. Take for example quantum mechanics and special relativity. There are regimes in which these two theories provide contradictory results. The search for a unified field theory has been described as an attempt to develope a theory that will reconcile these differences. Such a theory has not been found, yet scientist have continue to accepted these two theories as the best working theories while holding out faith that a theory will ultimately be found which is able to reconcile these two theories.
If scientists can thoroughly think things through and yet live with the contraditions inherent in the best scientific theories we've got, why can't a person thoroughly think things through and yet live with the contradictions between the science of paleontology and biblical creationism. Dr. Russ indicates that he has accepted this contradition exists and yet has not rejected either tradition. I would speculate that he has faith that some unified theory exists which would explane the contradictions between the two even though he cannot do so now. Accepting that he doesn't yet have the tools or knowledge to reconcile the two paradigms, does not indicate he hasn't thought it through.
I would have to know an awfull lot more about him to begin to conclude that he hasn't really thought about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit:
The end of your post indicates the problem with the beginning. Your example of quantum mechanics and special relativity being in conflict gives us the key. The two are contradictory, yet can be reconciled because both are scientific theories. Both are based in the scientific method and thus both can be modified or indeed removed in light of new evidence.
Paleontology and his version of creationism do not have the same relationship. To reiterate,
quote: He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
Note that problem, the Bible is literally true. No escaping as "softer" Christians would do by saying that Genesis is an allegory. Even the Catholics have retreated from saying that the Bible is literally true. From their words:
quote: “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture. ... But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
Literally true means a seven day (each day 24 hours) creation, Eve springing from Adam's rib, and so forth. These are so wrong that even Catholics can no longer defend them.
These elements are fundamentally irreconcilable with paleontology. Quantum mechanics and special relativity can be reconciled since either can be modified or extended. The literal truth of the Bible cannot be reconciled with palaeontology since the literal truth cannot be modified.
Dr. Ross cannot possibly have thought it through (barring something like MPD) without noticing this fundamental contradiction. One cannot appeal to new discoveries in science to reconcile the two and the literal truth of the Bible does not allow for modification.
In fact, it is my belief that he is simply dishonest enough to pay lip service to paleontogy while truly believing in young earth creationism. That he was able to do this well enough to get a degree simply speaks to the ability of the mind to compartmentalise.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:These are so wrong that even Catholics can no longer defend them.
Great, now those Catholics are going to feel like the Cavemen in those Geiko commercials.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This is what happens when one truly thinks about the contradiction through.
quote: ... Kurt Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. It is no accident that Bryan College is named after William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor of the science teacher John Scopes in the Dayton "Monkey Trial" of 1923. Wise could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of geology at a real university, a university whose motto might have been "Think critically" rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on the Bryan website: "Think critically and biblically." Indeed, he obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago, followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science and doing research at a proper university.
Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist religious upbringing that required him to believe that the Earth--the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education--was less than ten thousand years old. He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science, and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day, he could hear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with a pair of scissors. He took a bible and went right through it, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest labor-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that
quote: try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
I find that terribly sad; but whereas the Golgi Apparatus moved me to tears of admiration and exultation, the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic--pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life’s happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
Perhaps uniquely among fundamentalists, Kurt Wise is honest--devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest. Give him the Templeton Prize; he might be the first really sincere recipient. Wise brings to the surface what is secretly going on underneath, in the minds of fundamentalists generally, when they encounter scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Ah, good old Richard Dawkins. I wondered at the drama in the prose. Now it makes sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Dr. Ross cannot possibly have thought it through (barring something like MPD) without noticing this fundamental contradiction.
His words make it abundantly clear that he's aware of this contradiction.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed, which is why in the next sentence I said:
quote: In fact, it is my belief that he is simply dishonest enough to pay lip service to paleontogy while truly believing in young earth creationism. That he was able to do this well enough to get a degree simply speaks to the ability of the mind to compartmentalise.
That is to say, it is my belief that he has noticed the contradiction and has resolved it by fully believing in young earth creationism.
To elaborate, it is impossible to reconcile young earth creationism with paleontology without throwing out all of paleontology (with one exception, which I will explain later). The inevitable result of a collision between a compromising paleontology and a uncompromising creationism is well, just the uncompromising creationism.
Stuff he says like:
quote: For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another... as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
is just dishonest BS. Not in the sense that it is outright lying, but that it is a half-truth (with all the accompanying sayings about half-truths).
So I amend my previous statement. Either he has not thought it through (and honestly means what he is saying) or he has thought it through (and is very careful with the half-truths).
The exception: One could make the case that God went around planting false fossils, false evidence in space for the age of the universe, and so forth to "reconcile" paleontology with young earth creationism. But this is such an extreme view that I hesitate to use the term reconcile, which is why I put the quotes around it.
Edit to add: This in no way changes my original stance that he should not lose his degree or that we should respect him as much as a Satanist that managed to get through a seminary and preaches it at a "church".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's not dishonest BS. It is entirely possible to view the world through different paradigms and operate within them. People do it all the time. I would be more worried about someone who was unable to adapt to a situation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Perhaps you could give an example? Whether working in the scientific tradition or the Christian tradition, ideally one should be logically consistent in everything that they do in life.
Indeed, the early Catholic church was quite specific in its designated life (and afterlife) punishments for hypocrisy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. A Christian religion professor teaching about Islam who does not put "allegedly" in front of every sentence about Mohammed. A Mormon governor who does not enact anti-abortion laws in defiance of the legislature. A technical writer who uses Microsoft Word to create documents instead of Framemaker because that's the wish of the company. A crisis hotline counselor who gives information to a pregnant woman about both abortion and adoption, despite being opposed to one or the other. A visitor to an Islamic country who covers her hair out of respect for the local tradition despite being deeply opposed ona personal level to those local traditions. A guest at a Jewish potluck who refrains from bringing cheeseburgers and pork and beans.
People do it all the time, and it isn't dishonest. It is possible to hold religious beliefs that seem to contradict scientific findings, and to separate the truths into their respective spheres. I believe we have souls and there is a life after this one, but I still oppose disconecting life support for those who are not brain dead and I think there's no point in weighing a body at the moment the person dies in hopes of capturing the weight of a soul.
Do you think angostics should be forbidden from obtaining PhDs in religious history, for instance? Should no Protestants be allowed to study at Notre Dame?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Whether working in the scientific tradition or the Christian tradition, ideally one should be logically consistent in everything that they do in life.
Heh. As if that ever fully happens for anybody.
Out of all the not fully attainable virtues we can stive for, logical consistency is not at the top of my list. I'd much rather be good, kind, loving, happy, patient, and generous than logically consistent.
And honestly, the religious aspect of my life is much more helpful in attaining those virtues than is the scientific aspect of my life, which nevertheless is important to me.
----
Personally, I have similar conflicting paradigms as this guy. In many cases, the scriptures appear to say A while the physical evidence appears to say B, and A and B appear to be mutually exclusive.
I know that either the A isn't true (there are many possible reasons for this: because the scriptures are totally false, because they are mistaken on this specific point, because my interpretation of them is flawed, etc.) the prevailing scientific opinion B is not true (how many prevailing scientific opinions have drastically changed in the past? I don't know either, but it's a lot), or that A and B aren't quite so mutually exclusive as I thought.
[ February 15, 2007, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QB] Out of all the not fully attainable virtues we can stive for, logical consistency is not at the top of my list. I'd much rather be good, kind, loving, happy, patient, and generous than logically consistent.
They're not mutually exclusive. One can ideally try to attain all of them. Additionally, I believe that one *can* live logically and consistently without compromising the others.
Edit to add: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
katharina:
Christian religion professor: Thats not inconsistent. One can teach about beliefs that one believes are false without saying it *every* time.
Counsellor: Not inconsistent either. Just because one believes in something does not mean one has to push those beliefs onto others. It would be inconsistent if the counsellor said that she agreed with one of those courses of therapy. Ex: If the counsellor truly believed that abortion was murder, then I definitely would not respect them if they encouraged others to go through with it. However, providing information is not endorsement.
Guest: Thats not inconsistent either. Just because one *can* eat a cheeseburger does not mean that one is required to. Not bringing them in no way endorses the Jewish host or says that the guest agrees with their beliefs in any way. It simply means that they respect the host. An inconsistency would be if they somehow believed that they had to eat cheeseburgers only but then ate something else at the host's place.
Visitor: See above
Technical writer: See above
Mormon governor: Not sure about the Mormon stance on abortion. Assuming that Mormons think abortion is murder, this would be my response. A principled Mormon governor should do everything legally in his power to stop it. They should resign (and let someone else pass the law) rather than allow the law to go through. I would respect a Mormon governor that resigned rather than signing legislation promoting abortion, even if I disagreed with them. I would not respect a Mormon governor that signed against their own principles. I would respect and approve of a governor that could sign the law wholeheartedly without compromising their own beliefs.
As for the agnostics and protestants thing. If you read my previous posts, the answer would be clear. I have no objection to them studying or getting degrees.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are we actually disagreeing here? Someone who believes in a young earth can teach the scientific findings with the same honesty that a Christian can teach about Islam.
It would only be a contradiction if a Christian tried to BE an Muslim at the same time. Since science isn't actually a religion and you can be a scientist without your microscope saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", then he's fine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They're not mutually exclusive. One can ideally try to attain all of them. Additionally, I believe that one *can* live logically and consistently without compromising the others.
They're not mutually exlusive, but nobody ever fully attains any of them. If I'm going to spend time and energy improving my virtues, I think my time will be better spent working on other failures of mine than imperfect logical self-consistency.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are we actually disagreeing here? Someone who believes in a young earth can teach the scientific findings with the same honesty that a Christian can teach about Islam.
It would only be a contradiction if a Christian tried to BE an Muslim at the same time. Since science isn't actually a religion and you can be a scientist without your microscope saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", then he's fine.
I can agree with all of that. Our disagreement is pretty small. My problem is when he says stuff like "they're two paradigms of looking at the world." Technically, as I said, its not lying. But it is a dangerous half-truth. The two are not compatible in any way, unless most of paleontology is thrown out the window (which begs the question, why bother?).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What if instead of throwing one or the other out the window, he believes they are compatible and that will be shown when more information comes to light? That doesn't require either to be tossed, allows each to be true in their spheres, and quiets if not removes the cognitive dissonance.
---
*muses* I wonder if it is BECAUSE I'm Mormon that I'm not having a problem with this at all. There's a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that I think is fascinating. I don't know all that it means, but part of it is relevant, I think.
quote: 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
For what it's worth kat, I'm not Mormon, and I agree with you.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Edit to add: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
You're setting aside the part where Porter has some logical inconsistencies, and yet manages to do so without being a half-honest BSer, Mucus.
I mean, on certain issues in scripture, I imagine Porter assigns certain relative possibilities to A and B. But on other issues, his relative possibilities for error might change...and on some issues especially, I imagine his relative possibilities might be approaching faith-level certainties.
In which case, the difference merely becomes one of degree...and on some issues, not so many degrees at all.
--------------
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
No, in my example, A cannot change. A can be wrong, and there are many different reasons that A can be wrong, which I talked about earlier, but A is A.
If I become convinced that A is wrong, then I'll stop believing A. I may believe B fully, or I may believe C, which is somwhere between A and B.
Yes, I can change what I beleive. We have all done so many times. Including, I'd wager, Dr. Ross.
I don't really see how Dr. Ross and I are so different.
[ February 15, 2007, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
mph: I think we're scratching at semantics. When I say "change", I mean (as you said) your A changes due to mistranslation or misinterpretation.
Dr. Ross cannot change his mind, if as I repeat, he is a young earth creationist as he said he is. No probability stuff either. From wiki:
quote: Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as both a mandatory moral guide and a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history... As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster.
In Kurt Wise's words as a fellow young earth creationist:
quote: Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theory—it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues—such as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earth—are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.' ... I cannot stand people who propagate non-truth', he says. 'In school, my hand never went up unless the teacher said something I knew was wrong. I didn't care who the teacher was, if they said something I knew was wrong, my hand went up. There's just this automatic reflex action. It's really an issue of integrity.' ... He is concerned that there are 'creationists' around who, because of their understanding of particular scientific issues, deviate from the scriptural foundation promoted so strongly by Dr Henry Morris, for example.
'The thing I hope above all else is that no matter what scientific models we play with and toss off the hill, so to speak, that the hill is always built on Scripture. That is one thing I am very concerned about.'
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Dr. Ross cannot change his mind, if as I repeat, he is a young earth creationist as he said he is.
Of course he can. He can't change his mind beyond certain perameters and remain a normal YEC, but he certainly can change his mind. Just because he hasn't done so doesn't mean he cannot.
In a similar fasion, I also cannot change my mind beyond certain parameters and remain a Latter-Day Saint. That doesn't mean I cannot change my mind.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't agree with that. Evidence that doesn't get through peer view because of methodological errors is one thing. Evidence that other people just don't find convincing but don't have a problem with the method you used to arrive at it is just fine.
I would have to agree, but I think your second case is quite entirely hypothetical, so I don't think it contradicts my point.
I don't think its hypothetical at all. Just last week Rabbit mentioned that the effect of global climate change on hurricane frequency and intensity is currently hotly debated. From what she said, it seems clear that several peer reviewed papers have been published in the last couple years that made markedly different conclusions on the matter. However, the reviewers obviously concluded the methodology was sound. Also, some scientists must find some of the conclusions more convincing than others in order to continue work in the field.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Literally true means a seven day (each day 24 hours) creation, Eve springing from Adam's rib, and so forth. These are so wrong that even Catholics can no longer defend them.
These elements are fundamentally irreconcilable with paleontology. Quantum mechanics and special relativity can be reconciled since either can be modified or extended. The literal truth of the Bible cannot be reconciled with palaeontology since the literal truth cannot be modified.
You are building a strawman.
First, when two theories contradict each other it isn't essential that both be modified in order to reconcile the two. Modification of one of the theories could be enough.
Second, Although the belief that the Bible is literally true precludes changing anything written in the Bible, it does not preclude extending or adding to what's written in the Bible. The Biblical account of creation is very short and doesn't really contain any detail at all. Certainly one can imagine God giving a far more detailed account of how the earth was created that wouldn't contradict anything in the Bible. Given more detail, it is imaginable that one could find an explanation for why the earth appears scientifically to be 4.5 billion years old even though its less than 10,000 years old. I personally don't believe such an explanation exists but I can imagine that is does.
Finally, the key feature in the analogy I was trying to make is that Scientists believe that a Unified field theory that would explain the contraditions between Quantum Theory and Special relativity exists even though they have not found it. They can only speculate about what this theory looks like and how it would change the way they understand either Quantum Theory or Special Relativity. Similarly, it is imaginable that someone could believe that young earth creationism can be reconciled with the science even though they don't know how. The can believe that a solution exists which would bring the two together even if they don't know what that solution would be and how it would alter their understanding of either Paleonology or the Bible. And they could continue working within the tow disparate paradigms for now trusting that a reconciliation does exist even though they don't know what it is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:They can only speculate about what this theory looks like and how it would change the way they understand either Quantum Theory or Special Relativity.
It's worth noting, though, that a good number of such theories have been rejected as data came along which contradicted them. Where are the failed attempts to unify creationism with the real world?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Intelligent design?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'll give you it's failed, but the creationist community has hardly rejected it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Ironic, since it is utterly incompatible with creationism. (And it's true: they have not rejected it.)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You mean the teevee LIED to me?!?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)