Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kansas State School Board At It Once Again
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 106 of 136 (209974)
05-20-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by nator
05-20-2005 9:05 AM


Re: True Colours revealed indeed
quote:
Last year, the ground-breaking ETAN (European Technology Assessment Network) report was published, giving systematic quantitative information about the position of women in academic science in countries of the European Union (EU) [1].
The chair of the ETAN report, Mary Osborn (Max Plank Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Gttingen, Germany) summarized its key findings; for example, although women make up approximately half of the science undergraduate population, only 5—17% of full science professors are women.
In addition, it was found that southern European countries generally have a higher percentage of women in prominent science jobs than do northern European countries. This sparsity of women ‘at the top’ also affects the composition of committees that mould and shape the wider scientific agenda.
It was also found that women drop out of academic science at a greater rate than their male counterparts. Fig. 2 shows the percentages of men and women at different levels of the career ladder compared with the expected percentages assuming that both sexes are equally likely to stay in the system and are promoted at equal rates (the statistics are from Germany but hold true for most EU countries).
The report concludes, ‘to ignore these patterns is to accept discrimination in the sciences’. However, it is not just promotional success that is linked to gender but also salaries. Unbelievably, the pay gap still exists; in 1998, women faculty members in the USA were paid less than their male counterparts [2].
Another observation is that women tend to have a greater teaching load but receive less grant money and less laboratory space than male scientists. However, this results partly from self-discrimination as women consistently ask for less. Osborn's advice on this matter was to ‘think of a figure and double it’. Indeed, many prestigious fellowships have few women applicants. ‘If you want the job, you have to apply’ said Osborn. This statement goes to the heart of one problem: women simply do not apply for fellowships or certain grant funding in the expected numbers.
Wilson, E. K. (2001). "Breaking glass?" Trends in Cell Biology 11(11): 453-455.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 9:05 AM nator has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 107 of 136 (209984)
05-20-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by nator
05-20-2005 9:05 AM


Re: True Colours revealed indeed
quote:
Female undergrads seem to do well, but once they get into grad school and post-graduate work some have reported problems with discrimination.
I don't know that the main problem is direct discrimination but rather indirect. The glass ceiling is hit at the assistant professor level. Basically since the metric used in most places to determine advancement is the number of publications you have and their impact factors, and your most productive period coincides with the time most people want to have children, women are punished for starting families. More specifically, women are forced to choose between a career and a family as academics in the biological sciences. It is particularly accute in Germany where 60% of women in academics forgoe having children in order to advance since in Germany, one typically does not reach the position of professor until the early to mid 40's which is getting kind of late for having children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 9:05 AM nator has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 108 of 136 (210107)
05-20-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
05-20-2005 4:41 AM


Re: True Colours revealed indeed
holmes writes:
The US is anti-education and specifically anti-intellectual.
I admit some days I feel that way too, but we cannot allow ourselves to accept that vision. Besides, wait until those guys come to you wanting help to solve a problem. That's when you get to teach a little science )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2005 4:41 AM Silent H has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 109 of 136 (210110)
05-20-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Mammuthus
05-20-2005 4:06 AM


Post-docs as academic gypsies
Mammuthus writes:
The security of tenure is attractive but the endless postdoc series is really miserable
It took me seven years - fortunately all accomplished in the same location. When I was started my grad work, it was normal to do one or two years of post-doc before getting a permanent position. Now four to seven is more the rule, unless you're in a discipline in special demand. But I know capable scientists who have done ten and more.
I actually have a good friend who has published in Science and Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., has probably thirty plus publications, and is still only a non-tenured 'Assistant Scientist' - after 15 years of post-docs at five different universities !?
He used to call himself an 'academic gypsy' .
If America really wants to educate more good scientists from its own population, a good way to start would be to try stabilizing the career development process for becoming a scientist. I have often said we need to create a new category of research position for accomplished scientists to have some job security as part of a research team, even if not in a lead 'professor' position. Projects get funded in this system not the scientists themselves. We should support the 'teams' that work well on projects and invest in the people instead of the projects.
Mammuthus writes:
I personally would also not generally recommend a scientific career unless things are restructured in the future.
And this from a committed career scientist. Politicians please take note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Mammuthus, posted 05-20-2005 4:06 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by paisano, posted 05-21-2005 10:35 AM EZscience has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 110 of 136 (210184)
05-21-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by EZscience
05-20-2005 9:30 PM


Re: Post-docs as academic gypsies
And this from a committed career scientist. Politicians please take note.
I'd probably second Mammuthus' recommendation, at least for academia.
(I left academia right after the Ph.D.)
I am not sure how much politicians directly have to do with the perpetuation of the postdoc system. It seems academia itself must share some blame for this, but will perpetuate they system as long as willing victims...er, candidates... are available. If those are foreign born, no matter. It's in the ecoonomic interests of the powers that be (tenured faculty).
What's the latest from the Kansas board anyway ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by EZscience, posted 05-20-2005 9:30 PM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2005 11:25 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 05-23-2005 4:59 AM paisano has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 111 of 136 (210198)
05-21-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by paisano
05-21-2005 10:35 AM


T o p i c !
Paisano, thanks for the reminder to get back on topic.
If this isn't possible then the topic may need a break.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by paisano, posted 05-21-2005 10:35 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by EZscience, posted 05-21-2005 11:49 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 112 of 136 (210202)
05-21-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by AdminNosy
05-21-2005 11:25 AM


Kansas scientists absent from hearings - but not silent
The latest article I could find is May 9.
Here are some exerpts.
Evolution curriculum defenders not silent in spite of boycott
By John Hanna
The Associated Press
While Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings.
But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony.
Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory.
But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates.
"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."
The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.
"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."
Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.
The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates.
All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.
Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater."
"There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."
Intelligent design advocates argue they are trying to give students a balanced view of evolution.
Some Kansas scientists who support the evolutionary model contend that the real goal is trying to sneak intelligent design -- which they criticize as repackaged creationism -- into the classroom.
During the round of hearings that ended Saturday, witnesses said repeatedly that the study of molecules, embryos and fossils challenges evolution. But other scientists said their arguments have been discredited repeatedly.
"These people are willfully ignorant, and they choose to ignore the facts," said Timothy Parker, a Kansas State University biologist.
Intelligent design advocates said questions about evolution aren't going to stop.
Edward Peltzer, a Monterey Bay, Calif., ocean chemist, said scientists and philosophers have debated for several thousand years whether life or features of the natural world were designed. He was a witness at the hearing.
"They think they're going to outlast us," Peltzer said of evolution's defenders. "It's one of the questions people keep struggling with."
Another witness, Charles Thaxton, who lives near Atlanta but is a visiting assistant professor of chemistry at the Charles University in the Czech Republic, said the boycott is a sign of weakness.
"They've lost so many debates over the years, even their own supporters say, 'Don't do it,' " he said.
But Leshner said scientists don't fear having theories debunked.
Leshner, a neuroscientist, cited two examples. First, until the 1970s, he said, people believed newborns couldn't learn, and there is now evidence a fetus can learn in the womb. Ten years ago, he said, a prevailing view was that human brain development stopped around age 10, and when scientists theorized that it continued into early adulthood, colleagues were "hysterical," he said.
"Scientists love to fight, and they love to argue in public, and they love to refute each other's point of view," he said.
BEFORE THE BOARD
The hearings: A three-member subcommittee of the Kansas State Board of Education is taking testimony on how evolution should be taught.
The schedule: Evolution critics finished presenting their case Saturday, and evolution defenders get their chance Thursday.
The boycott: National and state science groups have refused to participate in the hearings, meaning their side will call no scientists as witnesses Thursday.
WHY THE HEARINGS: The entire state board plans to consider changes this summer in standards used to test Kansas students statewide on science.
Who's Presiding: Board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, and board members Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis. All three are Republicans, and all three are receptive to criticism of evolution.
Abrams' past role: In 1999, Abrams was part of a conservative board majority that deleted most references to evolution from the science standards."
Topeka Capital Journal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2005 11:25 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-22-2005 10:02 PM EZscience has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 113 of 136 (210455)
05-22-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by EZscience
05-21-2005 11:49 AM


Evolution is science and should be taught as such. Biblical creationism is theology and should be taught as such.
No one questions evolution within a species by natural selection. The question is in regard to the evolution of a new species from a preceding one. What is the impetus for this transformation?
Did this happen by random selection without any metaphysical interference or did it happen with the aid of an intelligent designer. It seems to me that we can only observe, (to the best of our ability), the results.
With my limited knowledge I can see of no way that science is able to say with any authority why things happened the way they did.
It seems to me then evolution should be taught as science and that random selection and intelligent design should both be taught in philosophy as articles of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by EZscience, posted 05-21-2005 11:49 AM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 05-22-2005 10:13 PM GDR has replied
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 05-23-2005 4:06 AM GDR has replied
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 05-23-2005 4:47 AM GDR has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 114 of 136 (210457)
05-22-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
05-22-2005 10:02 PM


W e l c o m e !
Hi, and welcome to our new member. (one so close to home too! I will be over there next weekend.)
This isn't the place to discuss it but you have a some significant misunderstandings of the basics of evolutionary theory. The worst being the mushing together of random mutations and natural selection into
"random selection". This is shows an utter misunderstanding.
I suggest you review the Biological evolution threads and post your comments there. You might use google (advanced search) to search just this site for speciation for one thing. You may also use the site's built in search function.
If you have further questions or need clarification you may post questions to the appropriate forum.
If you don't think there is one that is appropriate then you might post to the "Proposed New Topics" thread. If you ask about speciation and how it occurs there you will get a tonne of answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-22-2005 10:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by GDR, posted 05-22-2005 11:54 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 115 of 136 (210473)
05-22-2005 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by AdminNosy
05-22-2005 10:13 PM


Re: W e l c o m e !
Hi
I don't have a background in either physics or biology, but I do find them fascinating and as a result I joined this forum to learn.
I think I just got my first lesson.
One question though. It still seems to me that regardless of how one species evolved to another there still remains the question of why it occured. How can anyone definitively say that the change came about either with or without intelligent design.
Enjoy your trip to the Island and thanks for the tips.
This message has been edited by GDR, 05-22-2005 08:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AdminNosy, posted 05-22-2005 10:13 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 05-23-2005 3:43 AM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 116 of 136 (210502)
05-23-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by GDR
05-22-2005 11:54 PM


Re: W e l c o m e !
GDR writes:
quote:
How can anyone definitively say that the change came about either with or without intelligent design.
This is an interesting question. Part of me is saying, "Science keeps out of it. It doesn't even begin to consider the possibility of 'why' but rather restricts itself to the 'how.'"
But another part recognizes that the investigation of "how" leads us to conclude that there was no "guiding force" behind it. There are no indications that anything caused species splits except the natural action of chemistry and biology.
Now, if one is willing to claim that god personally, deliberately, and consciously makes chemistry happen, pushing the atoms around with a will, then one cannot possibly deny that. It certainly seems like nobody is making it happen, but that can easily be that we don't know how to look.
For example, suppose that there is no guidance in how objects fall: Gravity is perfectly natural, not supernatural. So when I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, they land without any "intelligence" behind them.
Suppose I were to take an identical handful of coins and place them in the exact same pattern.
Would you be able to tell the difference?
And more importantly, would you seriously claim that it is just as likely for the coins to have been deliberately placed as to have been naturally created? After all, all of our experience with "intelligently designed" chaos is that it is anything but chaotic. And notice that in this example, the only way we were able to "intelligently" create a chaotic pattern was to take a chaotic pattern and duplicate it.
In fact, given that knowledge, we could say that at least one was designed but that even if both were designed, they came from a naturally occurring template that we haven't been presented with.
In other words, the "intelligence" is deliberately trying to mimic a natural phenomenon.
And if that is the case, why assume an intermediary? If this designer is deliberately trying to imitate a natural process and is so good at it that it always appears natural and never, ever deviates from a natural process, what is the difference between this "intelligent" process and the natural one it is imitating?
Eventually, we find ourselves asking an existential question: Is god required for everything or are there some things that happen on their own?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by GDR, posted 05-22-2005 11:54 PM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 117 of 136 (210506)
05-23-2005 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
05-22-2005 10:02 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
random selection
Wait just a moment.
"Random selection"? What makes you think that selection is random? It is anything but. That doesn't make it "intelligently designed," however. If the barrier for surviving to reproduce is the ability to reach onto the top of tall object, then the taller individuals are going to be selected for (along with those who are able to get up there indirectly such as by climbing up).
This is not a "designed" selection, but it is not random, either. Only certain members of the population are going to make it to reproduction, not a random selection. Selective criteria are varied and subtle, but not random.
We see this happening in various "arms races" that occur between predator and prey species. For example, the prey of a predator that uses venom may develop a resistance to that venom. This triggers the development of more toxic venom in order to get past the resistance which triggers even more resistance, etc. This isn't "designed," but it isn't random. It's the specific environmental conditions that are driving it in a specific direction.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-22-2005 10:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by GDR, posted 05-23-2005 10:20 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 118 of 136 (210509)
05-23-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
05-22-2005 10:02 PM


No one questions evolution within a species by natural selection. The question is in regard to the evolution of a new species from a preceding one. What is the impetus for this transformation?
There is absolutely no question that the impetus of transformation for one species cross into a new species is the result of an intelligent agent: Human beings.
Look at what you just said above, there is no question that natural selection (which is not random by the way, its the mutations that are random) occurs to every living organism during reproduction, slowly changing the physical shape and genetic makeup of those organisms.
At some point human beings declare that the accumulated changes are so much that we will consider the descendent a different species. In some cases branches of descendants will accumulate different changes based on having moved into different environments and so result in us saying that there were two descendant species.
Unless there is some evidence that small changes cannot accumulate to such a degree that humans will not categorize a descendent as a new species, there is no need to pretend there is a divide between micro and macro evolution. They are the same thing.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 05-22-2005 10:02 PM GDR has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 119 of 136 (210511)
05-23-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by paisano
05-21-2005 10:35 AM


loop de loop
What's the latest from the Kansas board anyway ?
As a reminder, though EZ had news on the Kansas Board from the 9th, I had previously updated the topic back on the 17th.
The latest news is that the Kansas board has openly declared that the subject is not just evo vs id, but that they wish to change the definition of science itself. The result being that current standards and methods of science will be flushed right down the toilet so that any theory and manner of exploring that theory will be allowed as science.
As I pointed out in my previous post (called True Colours Revealed), this should be considered tantamount to a towel being thrown in the ring on this debate as it pretty well admits that the methodology of modern science must be changed so that ID can be considered science.
The debate of changing science itself is totally different from assessing whether ID actually fits as a science and more than that acts as a good competetive theory to evo within science.
This is a very scary move... or a great opportunity, depending on how you look at it. I can write pretty good pseudo-scientific BS if I really want to, and so a lucrative career can be had, as of course the people can be had even more easily.
This message has been edited by holmes, 05-23-2005 04:59 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by paisano, posted 05-21-2005 10:35 AM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by EZscience, posted 05-23-2005 7:01 AM Silent H has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 120 of 136 (210519)
05-23-2005 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Silent H
05-23-2005 4:59 AM


Don't give up on us yet...
holmes writes:
...current standards and methods of science will be flushed right down the toilet so that any theory and manner of exploring that theory will be allowed as science.
While I sort of saw that angle coming, I don't think it will 'operationally' affect the teaching of science in Kansas that much. Just because a bunch of ignorant politicians change the wording of the teaching guidelines to placate their fundamentalist supporters doesn't mean that the science teachers are going to change the way they actually do anything. It may actually backfire on them by serving to unite teachers and scientists in an open rebellion against the guidelines. Then they will all be made to look like the idiots they really are. That Connie Morris person, for example, sounds like she never got much of a science education herself.
In the University system we see tons of completely useless 'guidelines' coming down from adminstration all the time regarding 'desired learning outcomes', 'evaluations of clientele impact' and other such drivel. Most of scientists/teachers/researchers just go on about our lives, teaching/researching however we think it should be done.
Although it annoys hell out of me that they should be changing the guidlines in this way, I am really optimistic that it will have little actual impact on the whole system. At least until they start replacing the science teachers with priests and clergy...
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-23-2005 06:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 05-23-2005 4:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 05-24-2005 5:51 AM EZscience 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