Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,465 Year: 3,722/9,624 Month: 593/974 Week: 206/276 Day: 46/34 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?
mick
Member (Idle past 5008 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 31 of 85 (203364)
04-28-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
04-16-2005 8:41 AM


So the focus of this discussion isn’t so much the weak position, but the stronger position that might be supported by evidence or perhaps falsified.
I personally think that the "weak position" is the best position for anti-evolutionists. Just for practical reasons, a strong conspiracy is going to be impossible - it would be impossible to organise a conspiracy on such a grand scale, involving professors, graduate students and undergraduates, societies and university administrative departments. One reason it would be impossible is that scientists are so damn competitive - they all want to make their name, and boy could you make a name for yourself as the whistleblower! So I think any reasonable person would reject the strong conspiracy out of hand.
But the weak conspiracy is much more difficult to reject. We know for a fact that scientists don't just "judge the ideas, not the person". For a start, it is very rare to find a double-blind peer review process. Big journals like Nature, for example, reveal the name of the author to referees during the review process. This failing is mitigated to some extent by using multiple referees, but it still at least in principle permits political judgements on the part of referees.
Nobody can deny that such political judgements play a role in determining the kind of science that takes place, and the kind of people that do it. That is why we have the Association of Women in Science, after all.
Association for Women in Science (www.awis.org) writes:
Despite advances made in science, women still hold fewer upper level positions, bring in lower wages, and face barriers and stereotypes at many levels. This affects all individuals in science and science as a whole. AWIS is a non-profit association working to promote women's activities in all fields of science, mathematic, and engineering
MIT faculty newsletter (1999) writes:
Given the tiny number of women faculty and the fact that they are essentially irreplaceable, one would have assumed that all tenured women would be treated exceptionally well-pampered, overpaid, indulged. Instead, they proved to be underpaid, to have unequal access to the resources of MIT, to be excluded from any substantive power within the University.
If an unconscious conspiracy can have this effect on women, I find it hard to reject outright the suggestion that it might also (in principle) have an effect on religious people.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 04-16-2005 8:41 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM mick has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 5008 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 37 of 85 (203667)
04-29-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tusko
04-29-2005 5:43 AM


Another important (potential) source of bias is when you apply for a big research grant from NSF or similar funding agency. Not only is your name revealed, but you also know exactly who is going to be judging your research proposal. So it's very much a game, with the applicant trying to push the right buttons of the comittee who make the funding decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:06 AM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 5008 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 38 of 85 (203673)
04-29-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tusko
04-29-2005 5:43 AM


I just remembered about the media furore over Michael Dini, who was sued (or at least threatened with suit by a creationist group) for refusing to give letters of recommendation to students who do not accept humans arose by evolutionary mechanisms.
On his website, he gives an explanation of his decisions over whether to write a letter of recommendation or not. (I've pasted it at the bottom of this post).
This was portrayed as a conspiracy by creationists, though it's worth bearing in mind that Dini did it very openly, and explained his procedure on a public website. I personally believe that Dini gives a good justification for his actions, and his openness and honesty on the matter is admirable.
Michael Dini (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini) writes:
Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:
Criterion 1
You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.
Criterion 2
I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:
1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions.
2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me.
3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only).
4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.
Criterion 3
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.
The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:02 AM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 5008 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 57 of 85 (204194)
05-01-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Limbo
05-01-2005 1:02 PM


Here is an example of what I would call bias and bigotry in the scientific community
I agree that the scientists involved in this story are highly biased. Members of the Smithsonian appear to be strongly biased against bad science.
Truly deplorable.
This message has been edited by mick, 05-01-2005 09:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Limbo, posted 05-01-2005 1:02 PM Limbo has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 5008 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 67 of 85 (204318)
05-02-2005 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Limbo
05-02-2005 12:26 PM


Re: The biggest clue
The vast majority of scientific advances throughout history have been made under the belief that there is a God. Your point is moot.
It doesn't matter. The vast majority of scientific advances throughout history have been made under methodological naturalism, which means that one's personal beliefs in God don't interfere with one's scientific study. As long as we are rigourously naturalistic in our scientific methodology, we can do sound science whether we believe in God, we are Satanists, or we believe that our hypotheses are provided to us in our dreams by angels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Limbo, posted 05-02-2005 12:26 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024