tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post81500192087116390..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Some People Defend Lying for JesusLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72058810801973243342007-02-18T16:53:00.000-05:002007-02-18T16:53:00.000-05:00Mark says,But now, whenever Ross speaks or writes,...Mark says,<BR/><BR/><I>But now, whenever Ross speaks or writes, will he identify which paradigm he is engaged in? How am I to know if he is telling what he believes to be the truth, or just saying what he thinks I want to hear? </I><BR/><BR/>Not to worry. I don't think he's going to be using the science paradigm very often from now on. It's already served its purpose. :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38775269746440039662007-02-18T16:38:00.000-05:002007-02-18T16:38:00.000-05:00But now, whenever Ross speaks or writes, will he i...But now, whenever Ross speaks or writes, will he identify which paradigm he is engaged in? How am I to know if he is telling what he believes to be the truth, or just saying what he thinks I want to hear? I certainly would not want to hire a consulting geologist, hydrologist, or engineer who presented such a problem.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07891989201161664914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8223020156380575682007-02-18T09:52:00.000-05:002007-02-18T09:52:00.000-05:00Shiva says,But then what if the same student produ...Shiva says,<BR/><BR/><I>But then what if the same student produced a thesis that doesn't say so as in the case of this Ross? The academy evaluates written submissions and oral answers, assuming that the candidate is voicing what he has learned and concluded from his studies.</I><BR/><BR/>The intellectual environment in a university is based on trust and honesty. You are correct to assume that students who violate that trust by lying will get away with it; provided they are good liars.<BR/><BR/>If I were on Ross' oral exam I would have asked him point blank whether he believed that marine reptiles went extinct 65 million years ago. I would have asked him to summarize and critique the evidence for that date.<BR/><BR/>If he had lied effectively and pretended that he truly believed the 65 million year old date then I would have voted to pass him in spite of my suspicions. <BR/><BR/>However, I might have kept notes of his responses for future use. :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79558588591559193662007-02-18T09:32:00.000-05:002007-02-18T09:32:00.000-05:00Larry, You say No atheist student would get a Ph.D...Larry, You say <I>No atheist student would get a Ph.D. in paleontology if he rejected all the evidence for an ancient Earth and claimed that our planet was built by aliens 10,000 years ago, and all species were created in just a few days. Such a student would be laughed out of the Ph.D. oral exam—if he ever got to it.</I> But then what if the same student produced a thesis that doesn't say so as in the case of this Ross? The academy evalutes written submisisons and oral answers, assuming that <I>the candidate is voicing what he has learnt and concluded from his studies</I> If the candidate says something but believes something else the system has no way of comparing the two. Because the secular academy has no place for an idea such as <I>belief</I>. So much as we might criticise with Ross's ignorance, there is nothing we can do about his thesis. All the honour codes are about fraudulent research and study.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82917166487844774892007-02-17T12:42:00.000-05:002007-02-17T12:42:00.000-05:00See, this is one reason why I think ethical codes ...See, this is one reason why I think ethical codes are useful. In some cases, where the narrow criteria of a contingency (correct science in a PhD) isn't capturing the ethics that we deem useful (truthful scientists), it could help.<BR/><BR/>I do however think that it is hard to do enforce this unambiguously. Yes, if it is obvious that a prospective scientist is immediately going to reject his own PhD work because of non-scientific concerns, it should be quite straightforward to deny the PhD, or future employment et cetera, on basis of the code if the system allows for this. But in other cases it will be like any law or regulation - the individual verdict will be more or less fair and useful.Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13742545014459800272007-02-17T11:06:00.000-05:002007-02-17T11:06:00.000-05:00I''ll grant a degree to someone who I suspect of b...<EM>I''ll grant a degree to someone who I suspect of being a kook ...</EM><BR/><BR/>So you're volunteering to be on the committee for every Ph.D. candidate in the world? The issue isn't what line <EM>you</EM> draw or even what line <EM>I'd</EM> draw between mere "kooks" and the "truly loony," it is how to have a <EM>system</EM> that can tell the difference. I've seen occasions when you've abandoned reason in your reaction to religion. Why should anyone trust <EM>your</EM> objectivity on the subject?<BR/><BR/><EM>Students do not have academic freedom in that sense. They are still being judged to see if they merit the privilege of academic freedom.</EM><BR/><BR/>So, basically, you are telling the true loons that it is perfectly okay to lie because, if you do it well enough and long enough to get tenure we won't throw you out for the same things we'll deny you entry into the hallowed halls to begin with? What was that about "responsibility to those principles and ideals that continue to characterize the University"? Or is "university" just another name for "good ol' boy network"?<BR/><BR/>As to how widespread the practice is, you may only need to sample the faculty lounge.<BR/><BR/>Come back when you have a better criteria than it "it looks like good science or bad science to me." We don't accept that from creationists and I'm not willing to just accept your word on it either when it comes to the lives and livelihoods of people who have yet to be shown to have done any harm.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30907161734997604312007-02-17T11:00:00.000-05:002007-02-17T11:00:00.000-05:00On re-reading the above, I realize that I've proba...On re-reading the above, I realize that I've probably answered most of my own questions. But I'll let the comment stand anyway, in case Larry would enjoy eviscerating it ;-), or on the chance it might clarify things for someone else.Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34880793260461375102007-02-17T10:53:00.000-05:002007-02-17T10:53:00.000-05:00Larry replies to John Pieret: I'm going by the New...Larry replies to John Pieret: <BR/><BR/><I>I'm going by the New York Times article that quotes Ross. Ross said that he wrote his thesis in the "science paradigm." In other words, he disguised his true thoughts on the age of the Earth.</I><BR/><BR/>From other quotes given in the blogosphere (which I'm not going to hunt up just now), it appears his department and exam commitee knew of his views. Presumably, however, he did his dissertation "straight". It's not clear to me that he can be said to have "disguised his thoughts".<BR/><BR/><I>Apparently, in other departments it's okay to give out a Ph.D. to students who advocate completely ridiculous, non-scientific concepts that contradict all the data in their discipline. From what you and others are telling me, you do this because you are completely incapable of distinguishing good science from bad science.</I><BR/>Well, part of the problem may be exactly that: Yes, those of us outside science sometimes indeed have trouble distinguishing between legitimate minority views and truly bad science.<BR/><BR/>Take the Feduccia example: I know that his views on bird ancestry are in a (small) minority, that almost everyone else in the field thinks the evidence (with which I have a superficial acquaintance) is against him. But I can't tell from the outside <B>how far</B> into error he is. Is his just a less probable (but still plausible) alternative interpretation? Or does he ignore small items of evidence that would count against him? Or large ones? What level of reality-denial (if any) is he practicing -- where does he fit on the continuum from the accepted consensus to la-la lunacy? (Granted, he at least is not trying to subvert the whole process by dragging in magic as an expanation).<BR/><BR/>And given that it is a continuum (a view with which you may disagree), where does one draw the line? To drag in another example: you think that Miller and Collins are fooling themselves (and their audiences) with their TEist compatibilism -- would you deny them their degrees? If not, what is qualitatively different between them and Ross?<BR/><BR/>(Note: as a non-academic, I don't think I'm entitled to an opinion on whether the Rosses and Wises of the world should get their sheepskins or not. I'm just trying to understand the issues).Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89719350740923023932007-02-17T09:32:00.000-05:002007-02-17T09:32:00.000-05:00John Pieret asks,First of all, do you have any evi...John Pieret asks,<BR/><BR/><I>First of all, do you have any evidence that Ross hid his religious beliefs or deceived anyone at all?</I> <BR/><BR/>I'm going by the New York Times article that quotes Ross. Ross said that he wrote his thesis in the "science paradigm." In other words, he disguised his true thoughts on the age of the Earth.<BR/><BR/><I>Where do you stop? Doesn't Feduccia reject all the evidence that birds are descended from dinosaurs? Do we drum him out of the profession? What happened to that guy who used to be willing to defend academic freedom to the death?</I><BR/><BR/>We stop when students hold a scientific viewpoint that's compatible with the evidence. In my university, we don't seem to have a problem with this. Lots of our students propose ideas that are out of the mainstream—some of them are ideas that I strongly disagree with but that doesn't make them wrong. <BR/><BR/>Do you have trouble distinguishing truly loony ideas, like a 10,000 year old Earth, from legitimate differences of opinion? How do <B>you</B> handle that situation? Should we just hand out degrees to everyone for fear of making a mistake?<BR/><BR/>I don't think so. I favor erring on the side of generosity so I''ll grant a degree to someone who I suspect of being a kook but I still draw the line at the most egregious examples of stupidity. I'm really shocked that there are people like you who can't tell the difference between something that is completely non-scientific and something that is just a difference of opinion.<BR/><BR/>I'm a strong defender of academic freedom. Once you become a Professor you get to say whatever you like. That's why I would never fire Behe or Dembski for their opinions. Students do not have academic freedom in that sense. They are still being judged to see if they merit the privilege of academic freedom. <BR/><BR/><I>The Wises and the Rosses are few and far enough between that messing with the structure of awarding degrees in ways that might potentially turn it into a loyalty oath to the present orthodoxy is not worth the risk, as far as I can see.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not "messing" with anything. We evaluate graduate students every single day. I'm only applying the same standard to Ross that we apply to every other student in my department. Apparently, other departments have different standards. Apparently, in other departments it's okay to give out a Ph.D. to students who advocate completely ridiculous, non-scientific concepts that contradict all the data in their discipline. From what you and others are telling me, you do this because you are completely incapable of distinguishing good science from bad science. <BR/><BR/>That's quite a shock to me. I wonder how widespread this practice is?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8917544537939712602007-02-17T08:36:00.000-05:002007-02-17T08:36:00.000-05:00First of all, do you have any evidence that Ross h...First of all, do you have any evidence that Ross hid his religious beliefs or deceived anyone at all? Gould certainly knew about Kurt Wise's beliefs. <BR/><BR/>Where do you stop? Doesn't Feduccia reject all the evidence that birds are descended from dinosaurs? Do we drum him out of the profession? What happened to that guy who used to be willing to defend academic freedom to the death?<BR/><BR/>The Wises and the Rosses are few and far enough between that messing with the structure of awarding degrees in ways that might potentially turn it into a loyalty oath to the present orthodoxy is not worth the risk, as far as I can see.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90053334940042357512007-02-16T20:06:00.000-05:002007-02-16T20:06:00.000-05:00Hear hear. Integrity should count towards what yo...Hear hear. Integrity should count towards what you are doing, especially if in the future you will be looked to as an authority on the topic of your doctorate. If you use your position of influence to convince lay-people of stupid ideas, you are guilty of what is equal to malpractice.<BR/><BR/>If a medical doctor, after going through all the training and learning about how the body works, ends up convincing people that reiki can cure cancer, that person can potentially go to jail and at LEAST will lose his/her licence to practice.<BR/><BR/>How is this any different?Heathen Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01725771056948808724noreply@blogger.com