Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 438 (516290)
07-24-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crawler30
07-24-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 12:49 PM crawler30 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 07-24-2009 4:22 PM PaulK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 242 of 438 (516336)
07-24-2009 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crawler30
07-24-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
Hi Crawler30,
This is from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Can you describe for us how Sternberg was discriminated against?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 12:49 PM crawler30 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 243 of 438 (516340)
07-24-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
07-24-2009 1:36 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
Another Sternberg thread is Congress stepping in to stop witchunt of IDers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2009 1:36 PM PaulK has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 244 of 438 (516348)
07-24-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by crawler30
07-24-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 12:52 PM crawler30 has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 245 of 438 (516349)
07-24-2009 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crawler30
07-24-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 12:49 PM crawler30 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 246 of 438 (516372)
07-24-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crawler30
07-24-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 12:49 PM crawler30 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 247 of 438 (516441)
07-25-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by crawler30
07-24-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by crawler30, posted 07-24-2009 12:52 PM crawler30 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:32 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 254 by crawler30, posted 07-25-2009 10:13 AM Coyote has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 248 of 438 (516451)
07-25-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Coyote
07-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2009 1:02 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 6:42 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 253 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2009 8:35 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 259 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2009 2:11 PM slevesque has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 249 of 438 (516452)
07-25-2009 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by slevesque
07-25-2009 6:32 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
slevesque writes:
It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that would promote intelligent design ???
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:32 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:56 AM Huntard has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 250 of 438 (516454)
07-25-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Huntard
07-25-2009 6:42 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 6:42 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 7:01 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 07-25-2009 7:34 AM slevesque has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 251 of 438 (516455)
07-25-2009 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by slevesque
07-25-2009 6:56 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
slevesque writes:
We'll have to agree that the term 'evolution' means a lot of things. From simple 'descent with modifications' to the 'tree of life'.
No we don't actually. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in populations over time.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:56 AM slevesque has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 438 (516457)
07-25-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by slevesque
07-25-2009 6:56 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:56 AM slevesque has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 253 of 438 (516459)
07-25-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by slevesque
07-25-2009 6:32 AM


Editor's Job
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 6:32 AM slevesque has not replied

crawler30
Junior Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 15
From: Florida
Joined: 07-23-2009


Message 254 of 438 (516464)
07-25-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Coyote
07-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2009 1:02 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 07-25-2009 10:47 AM crawler30 has not replied
 Message 256 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 10:56 AM crawler30 has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 438 (516470)
07-25-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by crawler30
07-25-2009 10:13 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by crawler30, posted 07-25-2009 10:13 AM crawler30 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