|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think it is fair to say that Percy has a good idea of what happened. It was discussed here at the time. See the thread starting here Message 1
You do realise that sites controlled by the ID movement are hardly unbiased and that claiming persecution is one of their tactics ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Crawler30,
This is from the Forum Guidelines:
Can you describe for us how Sternberg was discriminated against? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Another Sternberg thread is Congress stepping in to stop witchunt of IDers.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
your own personal beliefs s being different from others does not give you the right to "kick" people around. That is called discrimination, and is wrong no matter how you try to justify it. If a physicist does not believe in gravity, should he be allowed to teach physics? If a geographer believes that the Earth is flat, should he be allowed to teach geography? Everyone has the right to believe however they would like, but that doe snot mean you always get to keep your job. This is exactly like the freedom of speech: your workplace cannot discriminate you because of what you say, right? Tell your boss that you believe he's a halfwitted shitstain, and see how far you get by screaming about the First Amendment. The right to free speach, like the freedom of religion, applies to legal consequences for exercising those rights (ie, even for telling your boss he's a halfwitted shitstain, you won't be put in prison), but do not apply when a basic belief prevents performing your job. Just like it's not discrimination to say that a man with no legs cannot play in the NBA - he's simply not physically able to perform the task. When you claim that one of the best-supported theories in science is bunk without being able to back it up with evidence and having not a single published peer-reviewed paper in a journal for support, you are not qualified to teach science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Wheather or not you agree with the mans arguments everyone deserves the right to believe and say as they please without the fear of reprisal against them for it. Freedom of speach is a right we all enjoy and it really is not fair to be treated unfairly (especially at work) because of your beliefs. Oh, ok. So you'd have no problem with me working at a day care if I supported man/boy love, right? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Freedom of speach is a right we all enjoy and it really is not fair to be treated unfairly (especially at work) because of your beliefs. Then you have the wrong idea of what Freedom of Speech really is. It is your protection against the government throwing your butt in jail for speaking your mind and even that is limited (see SCOTUS in Brandenburg v Ohio). Your Freedom of Speech should not, cannot and will not protect you from society’s wrath for saying something stupid. Sternberg not only said some very stupid things for a biologist, he engaged in a subterfuge of the journal for whom he was supposed to be working and he perpetrated a fraud upon the discipline of the scientific method. He deserved every affront he received from his peers and colleagues at the Smithsonian and he deserves every affront he will receive from scientists everywhere wherever he goes from now on. Edited by AZPaul3, : Wanted to. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
your own personal beliefs s being different from others does not give you the right to "kick" people around. That is called discrimination, and is wrong no matter how you try to justify it.
Nonsense, all the way around. 1) This fellow published creationist propaganda in a science journal, in direct violation of his duties as an editor and as someone who was supposed to be following and promoting the scientific method. Instead of acting as a scientist, he allowed to be published an article that was creationist propaganda (as that is what ID is). Its about the same as peeing in church if you want a gross analogy. 2) Discrimination is something all of us do every day, as a necessary part of our lives. In this particular case, scientists follow the scientific method and discriminate against the many endeavors that do not follow the scientific method; witchcraft and astrology, for example. Your use of the term, most often used in social contexts such as race relations, is entirely inappropriate in this context. He wasn't discriminated against as much as he paid the price for totally inappropriate actions and dereliction of his duties. 3) After "peeing in church" he had the nerve to whine about being "kicked around." He should have been drummed out of science entirely, as his actions were deliberately anti-science. 4) Ones personal beliefs are not the issue. Ones actions are. He screwed up big time, and then whined when he got caught. I have no sympathy. And I'll repeat: he didn't get half the kicking around he deserved. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Ok tell me if I got it right here:
It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that would promote intelligent design ??? Isn't that one of the major criticism of ID ... That it never gets published ? But then if it is not supposed to be publish , than how can someone critic ID on this particular point ? I also disagree with your saying that ID is simply creationist propaganda. The only thing it has in common with creationism is that it is not naturalistic. Many ID proponents believe in evolution, but not in a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that is pseudo science. It's not the editor's fault all ID articles so far are pseudo science.
It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that would promote intelligent design ??? Isn't that one of the major criticism of ID ... That it never gets published ? But then if it is not supposed to be publish , than how can someone critic ID on this particular point ?
It's because it's pseudo science that it's not published, not because it is ID. If there were a scientific article supporting ID, it would be published, and win the Nobel prize.
I also disagree with your saying that ID is simply creationist propaganda. The only thing it has in common with creationism is that it is not naturalistic. Many ID proponents believe in evolution, but not in a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.
It still remains a fact that ID was what creationists chose to get evolution out of the classrooms. And if it has nothing to do with evolution, as you seem to be saying here, then why do they always whine about it? It's not abiogenesis they want it taught alongside, it's evolution. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'm not gonna go on the pseudo-science thing, because we would need to give a definition of science, should science arrive at simply naturalistic conclusions etc. etc. which goes way off the topic.
It still remains a fact that ID was what creationists chose to get evolution out of the classrooms. And if it has nothing to do with evolution, as you seem to be saying here, then why do they always whine about it? It's not abiogenesis they want it taught alongside, it's evolution. We'll have to agree that the term 'evolution' means a lot of things. From simple 'descent with modifications' to the 'tree of life'. Anyways, I would think that in the end, it would have to go down to ID being taught alongside naturalistic abiogenesis and directed panspermia as an alternative explanation to the origin of life on earth. Because I agree that those that want it to be taught alongside evolution (in the 'tree of life' sense) are most probably creationists. For almost everybody else it would be regarding the origin of life. (except for those who believe in guided evolution, such as Behe. They are pretty much a third category). Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
slevesque writes:
No we don't actually. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in populations over time.
We'll have to agree that the term 'evolution' means a lot of things. From simple 'descent with modifications' to the 'tree of life'. Anyways, I would think that in the end, it would have to go down to ID being taught alongside naturalistic abiogenesis and directed panspermia as an alternative explanation to the origin of life on earth.
Ok. Please inform your fellow ID advocates then that evolution should be left alone. Not that I agree this should be taught in classrooms anyway, since it's simply not science, but let's not go that way.
Because I agree that those that want it to be taught alongside evolution (in the 'tree of life' sense) are most probably creationists.
And strangely that is what the Discovery Institute (ID's top advocate) wants.
For almost everybody else it would be regarding the origin of life. (except for those who believe in guided evolution, such as Behe. They are pretty much a third category).
Strangely, I have never met an ID proponent who wanted to leave evolution alone. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Slevesque,
I understand your concern that discussing the nature of science would draw the thread off-topic, but I don't think it is too difficult to find some common ground, so let me just briefly say a couple things I think we could agree on. We probably agree that science is based upon observations. We can only conduct science on phenomena we can observe (using technology, if necessary). So if a phenomenon can be observed, then it is amenable to scientific study. Scientists think of observable phenomena as part of the natural world in which we live. But what about supernatural phenomena? Well, we can't know about any supernatural phenomenon that can't be observed. Therefore we can only be aware of supernatural phenomena that can be observed. But when a phenomenon is observable, how does one tell whether it is supernatural or natural? The obvious answer is just to dispense with terms like supernatural and natural. If something can be observed then science can study it, and that's that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It is the job of the editor to select articles that fit the focus of the journal.
He violated that. The article in question is outside the scope of the journal. It is the job of the editor to have the articles peer reviewed. That is, reviewed by the appropriate experts in the field in question. He violated that. He choose individuals who would pass it rather than the appropriate reviewers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crawler30 Junior Member (Idle past 4776 days) Posts: 15 From: Florida Joined: |
You guy`s were arguing that nothing happened to Sternberg because of the article he published. I simply stated that he had in fact, been discriminated against. And now you have admitted to it, but believe it was valid. The arguement was not with the validity of it, but that it did happen. Also with your comment that kicking people around for saying things outside the mainstream of thought is basis for "kicking them around". Poor choice of words I think, but I do understand the point you were trying to make. But he did "suffer ill effects" for publishing the article as you said yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
crawler30 writes: I simply stated that he had in fact, been discriminated against. And now you have admitted to it, but believe it was valid. Sternberg's professional reputation took such a severe beating that it very adversely affected his opportunities in his chosen area of research, but he didn't lose his job. How can you call this discrimination? Have you thought this through? If you screwed up in your current job so badly that your opportunities for advancement dried up, but you were able to keep your job, would you describe yourself as discriminated against? I can understand disagreeing about whether Sternberg's actions were reprehensible, underhanded, unprofessional, and reflected poor judgment. And I can understand claiming that such characterizations are just a smokescreen for disagreeing with his stance on intelligent design. But I can't understand claiming discrimination. You know, I didn't make Deacon at my church after it got out that I was actually a Unitarian and only attended the church because of my wife. I feel discriminated against! --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024