You know who is gonna love this one

equivariant

It seems that J C is right after all :eek:

http://to.educationtechnews.com/az?ue=H7H&Id=3701843419&L=EducationTechNews_49_D&P=3

MagicMarker

http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/settlement-gaskell-case-006427

He was not hired, however, in part because of his apparent views on evolution; according to the Louisville Courier-Journal (December 10, 2010), "Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. And he recommended students read ... critics [of evolution] in the intelligent-design movement."

I wouldn't have given him the job either.

sponsoredwalk

MagicMarker wrote: »

I wouldn't have given him the job either.

You wouldn't have given a professor of astronomy because of his views on
evolution

This is a clear case of unprofessional discrimination.

JimiTime

MagicMarker wrote: »

http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/settlement-gaskell-case-006427

"He was not hired, however, in part because of his apparent views on evolution; according to the Louisville Courier-Journal (December 10, 2010), "Gaskell had given lectures to campus religious groups around the country in which he said that while he has no problem reconciling the Bible with the theory of evolution, he believes the theory has major flaws. And he recommended students read ... critics [of evolution] in the intelligent-design movement."

I wouldn't have given him the job either.

Oh no, he said he could reconcile God and evolution, but believed the theory has major flaws. Thus, he recommended at lectures to campus RELIGIOUS GROUPS, that they should read critics of evolution:eek:

Encouraging reading opposing opinion???!! Burn him I say!

Zillah

I believe in freedom of religion, and have no problem with Martin as long as he does not use the classroom or university sites as a pulpit.

Monsters.

strobe

Fair cop? Seems a straight up case of discrimination. As long as he thought the course what is the problem? 125,000? Madness, but that is the USA I guess. He certainly should have won the decision. Right?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Encouraging reading opposing opinion???!! Burn him I say!

While I don't agree with what they did, the intelligent design movement is not just "opposing opinion", it's a deliberately dishonest attempt to abuse the scientific process to further a religious agenda. Think of it like him recommending that psychology students forego their text books and pick up Uri Geller's latest publication, except that Uri Geller isn't nearly as bad.

MagicMarker

I think someone holding a high position of Science in a major university has certain standards to maintain. Teaching astronomy in the morning while preaching about intelligent design in the afternoon are rather at odds with each other imo.

The people doing the hiring say they didn't care about his beliefs so long as he did ''not use the classroom or university sites as a pulpit'', which sounds fair enough to me.

robindch

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You wouldn't have given a professor of astronomy because of his views on evolution

The university didn't give a job that requires a scientific outlook to a man who holds wildly unscientific views? I don't see too much of a problem with that -- I don't think he should have expected to get the job if he was a flat-earther or moon-hoaxer either.

But as the report makes clear, his anti-scientific views were just one part of the overall decision. He also received poor references from a number of people and the university did make it clear that they'd be happy to employ him if he agreed to keep his anti-scientific views away from the university.

The university's decision seems fair to me, though I'm sure he doesn't feel that way.

Can't wait for the creationist noise machine picks up the case and turn it into another Richard Sternberg-style cause célèbre.

sponsoredwalk

Robin there's a difference between not giving a flat-earther/moon-hoaxer a
job in astronomy and giving an accomplished astronomer a job dealing
with astronomy because of his skepticism with regard to a totally different
area of science.

And then there were the lamentations of the search committee chair,
Thomas Troland. Days before the committee was to offer the observatory
directorship to another candidate, Troland wrote an e-mail to a fellow
committee member expressing how disappointed he was that, in his view,
Gaskell’s theological propensities spooked the committee members into
choosing a less well-qualified candidate.

“It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be
offered the job despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any
other applicant,” Troland wrote. “…[T]he real reason we will not offer him
this job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to
astronomy or to any of the duties that are specified to this position.”
Outreach in the field of biology, he noted, does not fall within the
responsibilities of the observatory director. Four days later, Troland was
Gaskell’s lone champion as the committee endorsed a different applicant
by a 4-to-1 vote.
link

So we can assume that him being "a poor listener" and poor references
are the reason he didn't get a job "despite his qualifications that stand
far above those of any other applicant,” or we can believe what one
of the referee's realised and see that his religious beliefs were the
motivating factor. One committee member saying "“I believe in freedom of
religion, and have no problem with Martin as long as he does not use the
classroom or university sites as a pulpit” does not mean they were all
happy to hire him - as the e-mails & end result clearly shows.

Giving a biologist a job who doesn't believe contemporary astronomical
work can't happen because so much of evolution de-facto requires it
but evolutionary theory just has no relevance to astronomy, & therefore
should not be a deciding factor.

sponsoredwalk

Here's an anti-scientific view :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

I'm sure you'd have no problem if his job was taken away from him or if he
couldn't get a job because of this video interview.

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Robin there's a difference between not giving a flat-earther/moon-hoaxer a
job in astronomy and giving an accomplished astronomer a job dealing
with astronomy because of his skepticism with regard to a totally different
area of science.

I think the nature of his sketicism is a valid criticism. He is not just skeptical of certain aspects of evolution, such as horizontal gene transfer or whatever, he is seemingly skeptical of it as a whole, which is a massively non scientific viewpoint, informed entirely by his religious leanings. I, personally, wouldn't trust someone like that to continue being objective and scientific in other fields of science. He ignores science in favour of religion in evolution, how long before it suits him to do the same in astronomy?

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

The people doing the hiring say they didn't care about his beliefs so long as he did ''not use the classroom or university sites as a pulpit'', which sounds fair enough to me.

That would be fair, providing that you are consistent. Therefore you should be opposed to any academics speaking at political events, Amnesty International gatherings, debates etc on the campus where they are employed (except where such speaking is directly part of the subject and consistent with the curriculum they are employed to teach). So, for example, Richard Dawkins would have been forbidden to talk about atheism on university sites while he was employed to teach biology.

However, it is plainly inconsistent to say that academics may share their political views or even atheistic views on university sites but that it is forbidden to share any views that might be deemed religious. That would be a case of 'free speech, just so long as we agree with the speech'.

sponsoredwalk

I'm sure his criticisms of evolution is ridiculous but still that has no bearing
on his astronomical research/teaching duties.

Mark your argument that he might succumb to unwarranted religious bias in
astronomy is so wide that it could be equally applied to someone who is
left-wing since you could argue that while marxism is fundamentally rooted
in scientific inquiry it also rejects certain aspects of the foundations of
science and as such any left-wing "loony" could potentially indoctrinate
students. Furthermore, Feynman clearly stated he had a problem with all of
the social sciences, not just a bit but all of it. Furthermore all of the
biographies of his go deeper into his problems with these subjects & the
guy is just wrong about it. Luckily questioning the social sciences isn't as
highly politicized (religicized?) as evolution or that social scientists don't
have that much power because we might never have the Feynman
lectures, or his Dirac memorial lecture etc... Consistency forces Feynman
out of his job for questioning such important areas of science, but luckily
this idea is just nonsense & is clearly a case of abuse of power satisfying
personal biases.

PDN is right, it's really inconsistent to stop him sharing his religious/political
views seeing as so many people do this anyway. If you want to argue the
converse then Noam Chomsky should be expelled from M.I.T., Dawkin's
from Oxford or wherever it is that he worked, etc...

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

That would be fair, providing that you are consistent. Therefore you should be opposed to any academics speaking at political events, Amnesty International gatherings, debates etc on the campus where they are employed (except where such speaking is directly part of the subject and consistent with the curriculum they are employed to teach). So, for example, Richard Dawkins would have been forbidden to talk about atheism on university sites while he was employed to teach biology.

However, it is plainly inconsistent to say that academics may share their political views or even atheistic views on university sites but that it is forbidden to share any views that might be deemed religious. That would be a case of 'free speech, just so long as we agree with the speech'.

This isn't about his religious views, it is about his unscientific views. Science has nothing to say about God. If someone was a preacher on the weekend and a good scientist during the week then there's no problem. This is about him supporting intelligent design. The part that makes him unsuitable is the part that blatantly contradicts science, not the part that invokes God.

Galvasean

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'm sure his criticisms of evolution is ridiculous but still that has no bearing
on his astronomical research/teaching duties.

This. Would they fire a geography teacher if he believed Han Solo built the pyramids?

Manach

Depends or not if he taught that in his class. If not and they provable fired him on that, it would be a wrongful dismissal suit under, at a guess, european legislation.

robindch

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Robin there's a difference between not giving a flat-earther/moon-hoaxer a job in astronomy and giving an accomplished astronomer a job dealing with astronomy because of his skepticism with regard to a totally different area of science.

As Mark, Zillah and Galvasean have pointed out, and I'd hoped I'd made clear myself, this debate concerns whether a man with wildly unscientific views should be given a job which involves promoting science.

If Gaskell can't see that "intelligent design" is a crayon-level con-job put out by a bunch of cross-eyed religious nutters, then frankly, I don't think that has what it takes to be an average scientist, let alone te above-average one with "qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant" (which itself, I'd have thought was something of an insult to whoever subsequently got the job).

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Mark your argument that he might succumb to unwarranted religious bias in
astronomy is so wide that it could be equally applied to someone who is
left-wing since you could argue that while marxism is fundamentally rooted
in scientific inquiry it also rejects certain aspects of the foundations of
science and as such any left-wing "loony" could potentially indoctrinate
students.

Left wing=marxist?
What aspects of science does marxism reject?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Furthermore, Feynman clearly stated he had a problem with all of
the social sciences, not just a bit but all of it. Furthermore all of the
biographies of his go deeper into his problems with these subjects & the
guy is just wrong about it. Luckily questioning the social sciences isn't as
highly politicized (religicized?) as evolution or that social scientists don't
have that much power because we might never have the Feynman
lectures, or his Dirac memorial lecture etc... Consistency forces Feynman
out of his job for questioning such important areas of science, but luckily
this idea is just nonsense & is clearly a case of abuse of power satisfying
personal biases.

Feynman was wrong because he was looking at the social sciences with hard science like physics and chemistry in mind. Gaskell is wrong because he is looking at evolution with no science in mind at all.
While both are wrong, Feyman was unreasonable in using one field of science to understand an other.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

PDN is right, it's really inconsistent to stop him sharing his religious/political
views seeing as so many people do this anyway. If you want to argue the
converse then Noam Chomsky should be expelled from M.I.T., Dawkin's
from Oxford or wherever it is that he worked, etc...

The university didn't stop Gaskell from sharing his views, he can still do that, he just cant do it under the universities name.

Zillah

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

marxism is fundamentally rooted
in scientific inquiry

...What?

Marxism is about the implementation of socialism in human civilisation, thereby overcoming the selfish control of the capitalists. What have you been reading?

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

As Mark, Zillah and Galvasean have pointed out, and I'd hoped I'd made clear myself, this debate concerns whether a man with wildly unscientific views should be given a job which involves promoting science.

If Gaskell can't see that "intelligent design" is a crayon-level con-job put out by a bunch of cross-eyed religious nutters, then frankly, I don't think that has what it takes to be an average scientist, let alone te above-average one with "qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant" (which itself, I'd have thought was something of an insult to whoever subsequently got the job).

His views on topic X are irrelevant to the subject at hand since it has no
bearing on his work for the university whatsoever. Since when did
science become an ideology? Since when was there a requirement for
what a person must physically think? I ask you how soon is it until a
requirement that scientists with left-wing sympathies are purged from
their places of work for believing such silly nonsense that is responsible
for 100 million deaths? :rolleyes: This is a questions of the people in power
putting a mandate on the extra-curriculur mental character of their
candidates - basically personality profiling for a job where personality
is immaterial so long as the prescribed job is adequately (and in this
case more than adequately) fulfilled.

Science is not a democracy, but since this man is not scientifically
trained nor paid for work pertaining to evolutionary theory & his
association with a particular group that some happen to find displeasing
is immaterial. If you have a problem with it you are not talking about
science you are talking about the fundamental freedom of a citizen in
his own country to do what he pleases.

How do you all not see that you are arguing fight in the face of democratic
principles This has everything to do with a persons freedom of mind
& nothing to do with science since he is not a biologist ergo his scientific
work is in no way influenced by his personal opinions pertaining to it.

Again I ask you why not purge marxists from their chairs since they could
potentially start prattling on about some specific dialectical interpretation
of science in their free time? Why not purge marxist mathematicians since
they could claim that mathematical proof really isn't independent of reality
or some such claim? When you even broach the borders of a topic like
this, as you are here, you might as well go full whack to be consistent.

So, I agree a biologist cannot have associations with creationism since
it fundamentally conflicts with his scientific work but if you start mandating
extra-curricular activities to fall in line with a specific officially-mandated
party line you might as well be consistent & go full whack & realise the
full extent of what it is you're calling for.

Any argument that his "wildly unscientific views" on a subject in which
he is not professionally trained have no bearing on the work that he is
being paid to do since he is an accomplished professional in that area.

You know how I feel about creationism from the JC thread & I think you
are too nice when you put creationists down (:P) but I've made my
case above & I've specifically focused on "whether a man with wildly
unscientific views should be given a job which involves promoting a
different area of science that has absolutely nothing to do with
the science he would have been paid to promote", basically
I just don't think it's fair to seperate the context.

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Left wing=marxist?

You're ignoring the point I made,

Mark your argument that he might succumb to unwarranted religious bias in
astronomy is so wide that it could be equally applied to someone who is
left-wing since you could argue that, for example, while marxism is
fundamentally rooted in scientific inquiry it also rejects certain aspects of
the foundations of science and as such any left-wing "loony" could
potentially indoctrinate students. Similarly, you could argue that any
left-wing scientist could potentially ignore facts that do not fit his/her
ideological framework as a means to get rid of them.

Your argument, it if holds any weight, is equally applied here and would
most likely result in a substantial number of professors being ejected,
like it did in the McCarthy era, but come on - you know it's not a fair
argument since there are plenty of scientists who are left-wing and do
their job just fine.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What aspects of science does marxism reject?

Here is an example of what some marxists think:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/What-is-Marxist-Science/articleshow/1839636.cms
Now, use your own method of logic - this group of marxists = all marxists?
No, obviously not, but why not label all marxists unsientific because of
these? More mainstream marxists would argue that science is irrevocably
intertwined with the people doing science, i.e. that science is not an
absolute truth but always subject to change because society & social
factors directly influence it. That isn't the predominant view by any
means & I think it's off-topic to discuss this but the simple fact of
this dichotomy is reason enough for me to make my claims, why not
purge these people because Karl Popper called them unscientific 80
years ago since they conflict with the party line? They hold "unscientific
views" :eek:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Feynman was wrong because he was looking at the social sciences with hard science like physics and chemistry in mind. Gaskell is wrong because he is looking at evolution with no science in mind at all.
While both are wrong, Feyman was unreasonable in using one field of science to understand an other.

As with Gaskell, he too is a physicist expressing his personal beliefs about
another area of science in which he isn't trained and, shockingly, they are
wrong. Now, I'm arguing this point assuming Gaskell fundamentally rejects
evolutionary theory (which he doesn't) because it is immaterial what his
beliefs on it are since his job has nothing to do with it. His views on
evolution are about as relevant as what football team he supports. If
there was any way his views could impact his work, such as would
happen with a biologist, I'd be the first to argue he should never have
gotten the job but this is not a question of science it's a question of
impinging on democratic principles.

sponsoredwalk

Zillah wrote: »

...What?

Marxism is about the implementation of socialism in human civilisation, thereby overcoming the selfish control of the capitalists. What have you been reading?

Oh dear... If only everything were so easy to label with charicatures...
First off your sentence is a contradiction since even marxists are currently
capitalists - so we already see the flaw in using such brief charicatured
descriptions. Second, me saying "marxism is fundamentally rooted in
scientific inquiry" is a description of the philosophical foundations of
marxism that has nothing to do with the "implementation of socialism in
human civilisation, thereby overcoming the selfish control of the
capitalists", these are quite distinct topics. Third, marxism is not just
about "implementation" it's about understanding history & society in terms
of progress, class struggle etc... & particularly in the 1800's it was a
champion of scientific inquiry in the face of society, religious dogma, for
example - they held the correct perception that the world was not
immovable & concrete - in the way say Newtonian science dictated -
but that it was ceacelessly just "matter in motion" i.e. akin to the ideas
purported by relativity, modern cosmology etc... You can anachronistically
argue against them yes but in the context of the times they were quite
ahead in many respects.

Zillah

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

even marxists are currently
capitalists

Are you on drugs? If a marxist advocates capitalism he is no longer a marxist. Just like how a "Christian" can't go around convincing people there is no God.

sponsoredwalk

Zillah wrote: »

Are you on drugs? If a marxist advocates capitalism he is no longer a marxist. Just like how a "Christian" can't go around convincing people there is no God.

Are you engaging the arguments or just trying to indicate that me being on
drugs is some mental justification for easily writing off what I'm saying?

Being a capitalist is not some self-label you don like clothing, when you live
in a capitalist system you are a capitalist. Calling yourself a marxist doesn't
change the fact that you live in a highly-capitalist society and are therefore
a capitalist.

fatmammycat

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47688380/Ritter-Complaint


I wouldn't hire this loon either.

sponsoredwalk

fatmammycat wrote: »

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47688380/Ritter-Complaint


I wouldn't hire this loon either.

Different person :P

fatmammycat

Doh. I IZ having one of THOSE mornings. :P

robindch

^^^ Make perfect sense if read as "I wouldn't hire this loon either."

robindch

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

His views on topic X are irrelevant to the subject at hand since it has no bearing on his work for the university whatsoever. Since when did science become an ideology?

You could argue this is if there is one "science" for astronomy, one for biology and so on. Unfortunately, there isn't and it's sad, but quite understandable, that the university wouldn't want to hire somebody who apparently doesn't believe that the scientific method doesn't apply to, or isn't applied by, his friends down the corridor in other departments.

The university, I suspect, may have been thinking of Andy McIntosh's carry-on in the University of Leeds. McInTosh (not a bad name for him, I'd have thought) is a professor of thermodynamics and a prominent young-earth creationist who's been using his tenured position, and the authority that goes along with it, to provide mainstream "academic" support to (diploma-mill) Dr Ken Ham's AnswersInGenesis outfit. He's also a regular letter-writer to the UK's mainstream media advancing a range of nutty opinions on biology, but always being careful to sign himself as "Professor AndyMcIntosh, University of Leeds" -- an activity which has caused Leeds Uni to issue a statement rejecting McInTosh's views on biology. Not unlike Lehigh University's statement on Michael Behe's support of ID.

As I said, I can quite understand why a university would not wish to hire a creationist to start with. I can likewise understand why they wouldn't like to hire somebody with views that his fellow-scientists find objectionable, and who views his fellow-scientists as fundamentally misguided. It leads to departmental unhappiness.

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You're ignoring the point I made,

That is one of the worst goalpost movings I've ever seen. You have reedited your post and know are claiming that the new addition is the point you originally made.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Your argument, it if holds any weight, is equally applied here and would
most likely result in a substantial number of professors being ejected,
like it did in the McCarthy era, but come on - you know it's not a fair
argument since there are plenty of scientists who are left-wing and do
their job just fine.

So you are saying left wing=marxist?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Here is an example of what some marxists think:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/What-is-Marxist-Science/articleshow/1839636.cms
Now, use your own method of logic - this group of marxists = all marxists?
No, obviously not, but why not label all marxists unsientific because of
these?

Because that would be moronic?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

More mainstream marxists would argue that science is irrevocably
intertwined with the people doing science, i.e. that science is not an
absolute truth but always subject to change because society & social
factors directly influence it. That isn't the predominant view by any
means & I think it's off-topic to discuss this but the simple fact of
this dichotomy is reason enough for me to make my claims, why not
purge these people because Karl Popper called them unscientific 80
years ago since they conflict with the party line? They hold "unscientific
views" :eek:

So a few marxists disagree with science therefore they all do, and a man 80 years ago says something isn't scientific, therefore it isn't? You are not making a compelling argument here at all. Even assuming what you are saying is true, all it calls for is looking at each marxist in their own merits, some dont agree with science, some do, so just pick the ones best suited to the scientific job.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

As with Gaskell, he too is a physicist expressing his personal beliefs about
another area of science in which he isn't trained and, shockingly, they are
wrong. Now, I'm arguing this point assuming Gaskell fundamentally rejects
evolutionary theory (which he doesn't) because it is immaterial what his
beliefs on it are since his job has nothing to do with it. His views on
evolution are about as relevant as what football team he supports. If
there was any way his views could impact his work, such as would
happen with a biologist, I'd be the first to argue he should never have
gotten the job but this is not a question of science it's a question of
impinging on democratic principles.

As Robindch said, there isn't one science for biology, one for astrology etc. You cant say falsifiability and objective review apply in one field and not another.

Zillah

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Are you engaging the arguments or just trying to indicate that me being on
drugs is some mental justification for easily writing off what I'm saying?

Being a capitalist is not some self-label you don like clothing, when you live
in a capitalist system you are a capitalist. Calling yourself a marxist doesn't
change the fact that you live in a highly-capitalist society and are therefore
a capitalist.

There isn't really an argument here, you just don't seem to know what Marxism is. Being forced to live in a capitalist state does not make one a capitalist. That term is usually reserved for the bourgeoisie who profit from the system. A person can unhappily live in the US while constantly wishing the system be replaced with a communist utopia.

Marx himself lived in the Kingdom of Prussia which was dominated by the junkers, so by your "logic" Karl Marx was a capitalist.

I suppose you could start here?

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

You could argue this is if there is one "science" for astronomy, one for biology and so on. Unfortunately, there isn't and it's sad, but quite understandable, that the university wouldn't want to hire somebody who apparently doesn't believe that the scientific method doesn't apply to, or isn't applied by, his friends down the corridor in other departments.

Who said that he doesn't believe that the scientific method doesn't apply
to, or isn't applied by, his friends down the corridor in other departments?
I think it's clear from just the webpages that he was questioning it &
saying that he has his own problems that intro textbooks do not convey.
Just based on the evidence given in this thread what you've said has
absolutely no basis whatsoever seeing as the mans own quotes in those
links illustrate nothing like what you've said.

robindch wrote: »

The university, I suspect, may have been thinking of Andy McIntosh's carry-on in the University of Leeds. McInTosh (not a bad name for him, I'd have thought) is a professor of thermodynamics and a prominent young-earth creationist who's been using his tenured position, and the authority that goes along with it, to provide mainstream "academic" support to (diploma-mill) Dr Ken Ham's AnswersInGenesis outfit. He's also a regular letter-writer to the UK's mainstream media advancing a range of nutty opinions on biology, but always being careful to sign himself as "Professor AndyMcIntosh, University of Leeds" -- an activity which has caused Leeds Uni to issue a statement rejecting McInTosh's views on biology. Not unlike Lehigh University's statement on Michael Behe's support of ID.

Notice how a physicist (chemist?) is voicing opinions on biology - a subject
he is not professionally qualified in. Notice:

In November 2006 the University of Leeds issued a statement distancing
itself from creationism, and claimed that McIntosh's directorship of Truth
in Science is unconnected with his teaching or research.

that even UoL disagrees with the claim that his opinions have any
connection with his teaching or research. The point is that someone's
personal opinions should have no bearing on whether or not they are the
right person for the job and clearly this is the case seeing as both
McIntosh & Gaskell are accomplished scientists in fields that have nothing
to do with questioning evolution.

I'll go on the attack now, not only is science not a democracy but
choosing the lesser qualified scientist because his personal opinions
are unsettling is deeply contrary to scientific advancement & is deeply
opposed to it since you are arguing that the external social climate should
prevent a researcher from doing his work despite it being totally
irrelevant, as your McIntosh example clearly illustrates seeing how
successful he is despite his fruity beliefs. But you all think politics matters
in a case like this. An astronomer/physicist questioning an area of science
he is not qualified in just has nothing to do with science since he is not
doing science when he discusses biology because, shocker, he is not a
biologist. These are his own personal opinions & by any laudable
democratic standards he should not be excluded from doing work he is
more than qualified to do just because his opinions (which are irrelevant
to the work he was required to do) upset people. I'm sure differing
personal political beliefs upset some scientists too, but they are just as
irrelevant as personal beliefs on area's of science person X is not qualified
in.

I'm sure we'll have someone pull out the wikipedia definition of politics &
fish out the apparent contradiction in usage of terms so I'll be clearer, I
say that this is a question of politics because the man cannot issue a
scientific opinion on biology since he is an astronomer, not a biologist.
Any opinion he gives is a personal one on a subject he isn't qualified to
offer opinions on - so they become his personal beliefs. Him being a
scientist does not give him carte-blanche freedom to expound upon all
of science, just on astronomy since he is qualifed in that field. So, his
opinions are of a personal nature & if a university judges his personal
opinions as relevant we are not dealing in scientific assessment it is just
a witch-hunt, i.e. a question of the apparent freedom to hold differing
opinions i.e. questioning how democratic a democracy is. Why not also
screen those who hold the right political views? Why not pick the
snazziest dresser? If someone wants to quote:

"Why not also screen those who hold the right political views? Why not
pick the snazziest dresser?"

and tell us that these have no relevance to science then that is just
missing the point I just made above (but I do fear we'll see this ploy
attempted), his opinions on an area of science are not scientific they
are personal and as such judging him on his personal beliefs in political
in nature not scientific and if we want to get political on it we can
also choose other things too.

robindch wrote: »

As I said, I can quite understand why a university would not wish to hire a creationist to start with. I can likewise understand why they wouldn't like to hire somebody with views that his fellow-scientists find objectionable, and who views his fellow-scientists as fundamentally misguided. It leads to departmental unhappiness.

Gaskell’s lawsuit, however, argues UK officials repeatedly referred to his
religion in their discussions and e-mails. And he argues that UK mistook him
for a creationist — someone who believes the Bible disproves the theory of
evolution.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/martin-gaskell-the-latest-victim/

For what it's worth, which most likely may be little wrote:

Is Gaskell a creationist? He’s said some odd things that aroused suspicion,
but a friend of ours knows him and says he’s not a creationist. We have no
idea, but everyone says he’s a fine astronomer.
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/martin-gaskell-v-univ-of-kentucky-its-settled/

Seems that your sweeping guilt-by-association was incorrect & your
incorrect assertions would happily cost people jobs they deserve just
because your inconsistent McCarthy-esque witch-hunt standards allow
for it.

So that's two people in this thread who were wrong about his claims
about evolution and who happily argue the university was correct
despite evidence to the contrary.

However, the reason this witch-labelling is inapplicable is because his
work in one area of science has nothing whatsoever to do with his work
in another area of science, as the UoL clearly agrees, as do many people.

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is one of the worst goalpost movings I've ever seen. You have reedited your post and know are claiming that the new addition is the point you originally made.

:pac:

Adding "for example" and adding an extra sentence to spell out in
baby terms what I thought was originally obvious is not switching
goalposts, it's most definitely "one of the worst goalpost movings" since
it sets out to do nothing of the sort, in fact just point out the difference
in the argument between the original sentence & the new one and tell
us how my point has changed, the only thing that changed were the
addition of some illustrative words, but of course that only makes sense
if you're focusing on my argument & not just fishing for things to use
against me.

Notice how I bolded "for example" and added in blue the extra sentence
to clearly distinguish the added remarks, not because I needed evidence
that I was clearly making a distinction and not dishonestly changing my
argument but because I just wanted you to understand what I was saying
but you still like to ignore it & choose to distract from it with trivialities, if
you're not interested I'm not going to waste my time - I've asked the
same question twice, the second one trying to make things clearer for
you so that I'd get a response but instead make false claims about me
somehow changing my argument.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying left wing=marxist?

Are you trolling me? Do you seriously think I would make such a ridiculous
claim? You are just trolling me because if you had bothered to spend a
moment reading my point you'd know that I'm only mentioning marxism
since we're discussing scientific methods & practices &, in my view,
marxism is the best example of the scientific method that could come
from the perspective of those not in power. If you bothered to
acknowledge my argument you'd read that, in my original posts, I'm only
using the example of marxism because it comes from the perspective of
those who some could argue could potentially pervert minds and preach
anti-scientific views.

But there's no point because you want to try to make out that I'm stupid
enough to go off saying "marxism = left wing", pathetic, I mean if I was
saying something more controversial I'd understand why you were
side-tracking me but over such a ridiculously elementary point like
"marxism = left wing", I mean the mind boggles

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So a few marxists disagree with science therefore they all do, and a man 80 years ago says something isn't scientific, therefore it isn't? You are not making a compelling argument here at all. Even assuming what you are saying is true, all it calls for is looking at each marxist in their own merits, some dont agree with science, some do, so just pick the ones best suited to the scientific job.

Wow, you really are selectively reading me, I was explaining what other
people, not me, other people would use to justify arguing that we should
kick out professors with a left-wing (marxist) bias. Honestly if you thought
I was making that argument (compelling or not) you are clearly not reading
my posts properly & instead are fishing for things to use against me &
basically just showing that it's got nothing to do with my arguments
(because you're misreading them) and just having a go. This is pointless
if you're going to read my posts and assume I am making the arguments
that I'm actually trying to dismiss - just a serious example of you
misreading me.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As Robindch said, there isn't one science for biology, one for astrology etc. You cant say falsifiability and objective review apply in one field and not another.

Apparently people can, and do - it's called a double standard. This is the
answer I'd give you if I copied the way you've been responding to some
of my points, but no I still see the point you're making & will answer it.
I agree you can't say one applies in one field & not the other if you want
to be consistent but I haven't read anyone claim such a thing :pac: and
even still - if such a person appeared I'd still argue that their personal
opinions on a topic that has absolutely no relevance to the job they are
applying for should have no relevance to whether or not they get the
job since it impinges on their democratic rights to hold contrary opinions
& in no way influences the work they are required to do.

sponsoredwalk

Zillah wrote: »

There isn't really an argument here, you just don't seem to know what Marxism is. Being forced to live in a capitalist state does not make one a capitalist. That term is usually reserved for the bourgeoisie who profit from the system. A person can unhappily live in the US while constantly wishing the system be replaced with a communist utopia.

Marx himself lived in the Kingdom of Prussia which was dominated by the junkers, so by your "logic" Karl Marx was a capitalist.

I suppose you could start here?

I'm sorry if you aren't familiar with all usages of the word but unless you
are discussing homeless marxists who do not contribute their labor (just
one of the forms of capital) then I was in fact correct in my usage, but
of course it doesn't apply in the narrow sense you were thinking in - but
insulting me & trying to insinuate I don't know what I'm talking about
is pretty rich when you're the one who hasn't read enough on this
subject to recognise the context my grammar makes sense in.

Just because you tell us that someone, say in the US, is unhappy about
capitalism does not mean that his posession of capital & his value as
a factor of production suddenly becomes null & void thereby making
him not a capitalist.

If you want it spelled out to you:

The term capitalist refers to an owner of capital rather than an economic system...

...


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term capitalist in his first work, What is
Property? (1840) to refer to the owners of capital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

In neoclassical economics, capital, capital goods, or real capital are the factor of production,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_(economics)

In Marx's critique of political economy, the capitalist mode of production is the production system of capitalist societies, which began in Europe in the 16th century, grew rapidly in Western Europe from the end of the 18th century, and later extended to most of the world. It is characterised by: the predominance of private ownership of the means of production and of labour power; distribution and exchange in a mainly market economy (commodity production); and capital accumulation (production for profit).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production

In economics, factors of production (or productive inputs or resources) are any commodities or services used to produce goods and services. 'Factors of production' may also refer specifically to the primary factors, which are stocks including land, labor (the ability to work), and capital goods applied to production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_production

...

...
Marxian

Marx considered the "elementary factors of the labor-process" or "productive forces" to be:

• Labor ("work itself")
• The subject of labor (objects transformed by labor)
• The instruments of labor (or means of production).[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_production#Marxian

So we can take your word for it that the idealistic chap who rebels
against the system is not really a capitalist because capitalists are just
the bourgeoise or we can go by definitions that clearly state that a
capitalist is he who own capital, be it land, labour etc... and not some
vague undefined usage you so conveniently apply.

I've never claimed that "Being forced to live in a capitalist state
does not make one a capitalist" I said living in a capitalist system does,
so a homeless person who doesn't offer their labour (i.e. work) or own
capital etc... could make a case for not being a capitalist but every marxist
I've ever read of or known about was living inside the system &
while they can be called a marxist can also be called a capitalist regardless
of how displeasing it sounds. Notice that my original claim that "even
marxists are capitalists" defines just about every marxist author there is
but I'd love for you to find some exceptions for me in your quest to
illustrate my incompetence.

But what do I know seeing as you've so cleverly shown us that I'm on
drugs & just don't know anything about marxism...

robindch

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Seems that your sweeping guilt-by-association was incorrect & your incorrect assertions would happily cost people jobs they deserve just because your inconsistent McCarthy-esque witch-hunt standards allow for it.

I await with interest a statement from Gaskell in which he rejects creationism/ID and announces that he's happy that the conclusions drawn by his professional colleagues in biology are fully scientific and the Modern Synethesis is humanity's best current explanation for the existence of life on earth as we see it.

Until he does this, I'm afraid that I'm going to stick with my belief that he's unscientific himself and therefore unfit to hold an academic post in a science department. Particularly a post which -- if previous experience with creationists is anything to go by -- he may be prepared to abuse in order to advance a range of preposterously anti-scientific views.

And there is nothing McCarthy-esque in wishing that tenured academic chairs would be held by people who are worthy of the position.

equivariant

I have a question for those who defend U of K in this issue. Which other religious beliefs (apart from creationism) would be grounds for disqualifying a candidate from holding a scientific post at a university?

robindch

If an applicant was applying for a scientific position, but held that the earth was flat, or that disease was caused by "bad spirits", or that homeopathy was supported by a wide range of evidence, or that the USA didn't land on the moon, then frankly, I'd be pretty worried that (a) they were uninformed, credulous and unscientific and that (b) therefore, they'd be unfit to get a job offer.

While I wouldn't be wildly happy, I certainly wouldn't have any irreconcilable problems with people who hold from this class of views if they were to apply for positions which don't require a scientific-standard, rigorous fact-based approach (ie, language, the arts, humanities (but not history), religion etc).

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

I have a question for those who defend U of K in this issue. Which other religious beliefs (apart from creationism) would be grounds for disqualifying a candidate from holding a scientific post at a university?

Any one that gives the impression that the person has no respect for science or the scientific method as a tool for human understanding and discovery.

Saying it is not his area of science would be fine if he held some unorthodox but still scientific views in relation to biology.

But to hold wholly unscientific views with relation to biology is an a front to science, not just biology. The same scientific method that comes up with the theories in his area also comes up with the theories in biology.

It is like putting a state judge on the bench who believes black people shouldn't be allowed vote under the idea that well there are very few black people in this state, and he respects the rights of white people, so really this shouldn't be an issue. it is missing the wood for the trees, which is the judge does not respect the fundamentals of human rights, and the fact that we simply won't see that because he is only dealing with white people shouldn't matter, he is unsuitable to carry out a position of civil rights.

equally this guy seems to not respect the fundamentals of science, and the fact that you won't notice this because he is only working in astronomy shouldn't matter.

equivariant

In response to the last couple of posts (which basically sidestepped my question). Let me be a bit more precise.

Should a person who believes in the virgin birth be disallowed from becoming an obstetrician?

Should a person who believes in the resurrection of Jesus be disallowed from working as a biologist?

Should a person who believes in the existence of coded messages in the Koran/Bible be disallowed from working as a mathematician/statistician?

These beliefs are just as unscientific as young earth creationism.

Any one that gives the impression that the person has no respect for science or the scientific method as a tool for human understanding and discovery

Are you suggesting that the person in question here had no respect for science or the scientific method? What is your evidence for this other than his belief in creationism? What gives you the right to judge how much respect a person has for the scientific method? How can you judge that someone who holds, in your view, apparently self contradictory views, therefore has no respect for science - these are very subjective opinions that you are expressing.

equivariant

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like putting a state judge on the bench who believes black people shouldn't be allowed vote under the idea that well there are very few black people in this state, and he respects the rights of white people, so really this shouldn't be an issue. it is missing the wood for the trees, which is the judge does not respect the fundamentals of human rights, and the fact that we simply won't see that because he is only dealing with white people shouldn't matter, he is unsuitable to carry out a position of civil rights.

equally this guy seems to not respect the fundamentals of science, and the fact that you won't notice this because he is only working in astronomy shouldn't matter.

I completely disagree that this is a good analogy.

A better analogy would be to ask whether or not it is valid to have any religious people act as judges, seeing as they might believe in the primacy of divine law over any human law. If you follow your position in this thread to its logical conclusion, then surely you must challenge the validity of appointing any deeply religious person to a position of authority. It is a (morally) dangerous path that you tread here.

sponsoredwalk

robindch wrote: »

Until he does this, I'm afraid that I'm going to stick with my belief that he's unscientific himself and therefore unfit to hold an academic post in a science department. Particularly a post which -- if previous experience with creationists is anything to go by -- he may be prepared to abuse in order to advance a range of preposterously anti-scientific views.

Well Robin if you were in charge we know the world would be deprived of
a lot * of scientists who are very successful in their work despite
harbouring anti-scientific views. I suppose Prof's Fastovsky & Boothroyd
were acting against your standards in defending the hilarious case of
a young earth creationist's "impeccable" research into "the abundance and
spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the
end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago". After all, this mans
scientific dissertation is "unscientific" according to your standards because
of his unscientific personal beliefs.

I think it's unfortunate that people in here supposedly championing science
are doing so using political arguments. I've already explained why they are
political reasons & not scientific ones but I'll repeat, this is a question of
politics because he is an astronomer, not a biologist, and as such the man
cannot issue a scientific opinion on biology he can only offer personal
opinions. Him being a scientist does not give him carte-blanche freedom
to expound upon all of science with a scientific opinion, just on astronomy
since he is qualifed in that field. This is clearly evident by all of the people
in the big list above if you need evidence even though it just logically
follows.

So, his opinions are of a personal nature & if a university judges his
personal opinions as relevant we are not dealing in scientific assessment
we are judging a person based on their personal beliefs and as such we
are dealing in a question of equality of right to work, i.e. equality - a
right apparently fundamental to the democratic principles we in the West
supposedly hold in such high esteem. It seems all on this particular
panel were not treated equally.

The only way his personal opinions would become relevant would be if
his personal opinions came into conflict with his scientific research -
such as a creationist would illustrate if they were to become a biologist.
There is a fundamental contradiction since the person is not doing
science to find conclusions based on facts that person is finding facts
to fit the conclusions & a part of the job of a biologist is to find facts that
illustrate naturalistic origins - something in gross contradiction to the
personal beliefs of a creationist. But the situation we are discussing has
nothing like this involved so it's not scientific it's political.

Also:

I stick by my argument that the claims in this thread are deeply contrary
to scientific advancement & fundamentally opposed to science since you
are arguing that a persons personal beliefs on a subject they are not
qualified in (& impact their own research in no way whatsoever) should prevent them
from doing a job they are more than adequately qualified to do & by all
laudable measures deserve.

Furthermore, since your arguments lie in the political sphere you are really
arguing against democratic principles, more specifically equal opportunity &
incorrectly cloaking it in McCarthy-esque snair-words like communist
creationist & arguing that scientific standards apply to someone who isn't
scientifically qualified to hold an opinion on the subject, (thus making it his
personal opinion) when scientific standards do not hold for a persons
personal opinion on a subject that in no way influences their work.

If him being a scientist qualified in astronomy makes his opinions on
biology any more meaningful then Michael Behe being qualified in biology
makes his opinions on astronomy important - but they just aren't.
Similarly Feynman's opinions on the social sciences are just not important
& they are fundamentally wrong (and were back then), Feynman was
making a claim that a science he was not qualified in was fundamentally
un-scientific but he was wrong - but we don't advocate him being thrown
out (well, not so sure now :pac:).

robindch wrote: »

And there is nothing McCarthy-esque in wishing that tenured academic chairs would be held by people who are worthy of the position.

Correct, but your arguments in this thread are not those of someone
making the claim that enured academic chairs would be held by people
who are worthy of the position they are the arguments of someone who
wants to use person X's personal opinions on a subject they are not
qualified in as justification for blocking them from a scientific job they
more than adequately qualified for.

* So Robin, I'd like to know why you hold beliefs that would literally kick out a lot of scientists
in their respective fields for holding grossly contradictoy views as regards biology but in their
non-biological fields are very successful. Focus on the mechanical engineers, physicists etc...
in that list if you are checking the credentials to try to discredit my point, the fact is that they
would be kicked out if you had your way despite their nonsense views not impacting their
successful work. The thing is that I can dissociate myself from this political nonsense & judge
people on the quality of their work - just as Fastovsky & Boothroyd do, UoL do & many other
people who employ creationist hacks do.

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

A better analogy would be to ask whether or not it is valid to have any religious people act as judges, seeing as they might believe in the primacy of divine law over any human law.

That is a pretty good analogy as well. You can see the issue that can cause in places like Iran and Pakistan, where rouge judges give out sentences that go against the countries rule of law but that are in line with fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

If a judge said that he though the rule of law was in contradiction to divine law and divine law trumped that, you would be perfectly entitled to not put him in a position where he was a judge who had to deal with the rule of law.

equivariant wrote: »

If you follow your position in this thread to its logical conclusion, then surely you must challenge the validity of appointing any deeply religious person to a position of authority. It is a (morally) dangerous path that you tread here.

You must challenge the validity of appointing any one who disagrees with the principles of science when they are in a position of either having to follow or teaching science.

I mean it is some what mind boggling that anyone would actually disagree with that.

Religious discrimination is only bad when your religious views have nothing to do with the job you are carrying out. If they do then they become a valid thing to assess. I mean would the RCC feel compelled to appoint me Pope because they don't want to discriminate on the grounds of religion? :pac:

equivariant wrote: »

Let me be a bit more precise.

Should a person who believes in the virgin birth be disallowed from becoming an obstetrician?

No, not unless he makes clear that he believes that medical practices are not needed because he believes "God takes care of that".

I mean, would you be happy to have your baby delivered by someone who believed that medical intervention was blasphemy and that if the baby lives or dies was "In God's hands"

If you wouldn't be happy with that then you at least recognize that some religious views do effect the validity of a person holding a job or position.

equivariant wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the person in question here had no respect for science or the scientific method? What is your evidence for this other than his belief in creationism?

That is like asking what is your evidence that someone hates Jewish people other than the fact that he is a member of a neo-Nazi group who like to dress up as Hitler and go on marches with banners that say "Death to the Jews"

Or saying how can you judge UKIP for being anti-European, sure didn't they stand in European elections, ignoring the fact that they stood in these elections under the banner of saying they will get the UK out of Europe.

Creationism is an a front to the very nature and principles of science. Saying how can you say this guy is anti-science just because he is a Creationist is like saying how can you say this guy is anti-science just because he is anti-science.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

In response to the last couple of posts (which basically sidestepped my question).

You asked for some examples of religious beliefs, and I gave them -- no sidestep at all

equivariant wrote: »

Should a person who believes in the virgin birth be disallowed from becoming an obstetrician? [...] Should a person who believes in the resurrection of Jesus be disallowed from working as a biologist?

Sidestepping the verbal trap you've tried to set, I'll give a jesuitical answer -- No, I don't think that people should be disqualified from medicine or biology, because (a) there is the mildest of evidence that these events actually did happen, (b) these events only happened once, and to highly specific people; they are not general phenomena that the average christian believer believes can happen in the normal course of events and (c) I'm inclined to think that many christian believers don't really believe these things to start with.

equivariant wrote: »

Should a person who believes in the existence of coded messages in the Koran/Bible be disallowed from working as a mathematician/statistician?

"disallowed"? I simply wouldn't hire a statistician who didn't know his job. If other people want to hire crappy mathematicians, it's entirely up to them.

equivariant wrote: »

What gives you the right to judge how much respect a person has for the scientific method?

By their fruits ye shall know them (Mat 7:20).

equivariant wrote: »

How can you judge that someone who holds, in your view, apparently self contradictory views, therefore has no respect for science - these are very subjective opinions that you are expressing.

Because if Gaskell supports ID, then de-facto, he does not understand science. And yes, they are subjective views, but that doesn't make them wrong, or even inaccurate.

equivariant wrote: »

If you follow your position in this thread to its logical conclusion, then surely you must challenge the validity of appointing any deeply religious person to a position of authority. It is a (morally) dangerous path that you tread here.

Yes, it is a dangerous path, however, it's a path that's been trod by religious people at the behest of religious leaders eager to acquire temporal power by the easiest means possible.

In philosophical terms, it's referred to as the Problem of Authority, and it's a well-known and well-discussed dilemma within political science:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/

So, would you be happy to appoint Dominionist to a position of political authority? Would you appoint a climate change denier to the EPA? Would you appoint John Bolton as ambassador to the UN? Would you appoint senior military officers to Afghanistan who believe that military personnel should convert the natives to christianity?

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Adding "for example" and adding an extra sentence to spell out in
baby terms what I thought was originally obvious is not switching
goalposts, it's most definitely "one of the worst goalpost movings" since
it sets out to do nothing of the sort, in fact just point out the difference
in the argument between the original sentence & the new one and tell
us how my point has changed, the only thing that changed were the
addition of some illustrative words, but of course that only makes sense
if you're focusing on my argument & not just fishing for things to use
against me.

By adding "for example" you change the strength of your comparison of left wingers and marxists. Without "for example", you are declaring left wingers to be marxist ("X" should happen to left wingers, since marxists are "Y"), with "for example" the declaration is that marxists are a subset of left wingers. Even if what you meant was that any left winger should be under the same scrutiny as the scientist in the OP, because some marxists (one example of left wingers) sometimes disregard science when it suits them, then you would still be wrong. Even if some marxists disregard science, this has no immediate bearing on what other marxist think of science and certianly no bearing on what other lefties think of it.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Notice how I bolded "for example" and added in blue the extra sentence
to clearly distinguish the added remarks, not because I needed evidence
that I was clearly making a distinction and not dishonestly changing my
argument but because I just wanted you to understand what I was saying
but you still like to ignore it & choose to distract from it with trivialities, if
you're not interested I'm not going to waste my time - I've asked the
same question twice, the second one trying to make things clearer for
you so that I'd get a response but instead make false claims about me
somehow changing my argument.

Without the bolded and blued words, your point implies something completely different, I just read it as you wrote it.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Are you trolling me? Do you seriously think I would make such a ridiculous
claim? You are just trolling me because if you had bothered to spend a
moment reading my point you'd know that I'm only mentioning marxism
since we're discussing scientific methods & practices &, in my view,
marxism is the best example of the scientific method that could come
from the perspective of those not in power. If you bothered to
acknowledge my argument you'd read that, in my original posts, I'm only
using the example of marxism because it comes from the perspective of
those who some could argue could potentially pervert minds and preach
anti-scientific views.

But there's no point because you want to try to make out that I'm stupid
enough to go off saying "marxism = left wing", pathetic, I mean if I was
saying something more controversial I'd understand why you were
side-tracking me but over such a ridiculously elementary point like
"marxism = left wing", I mean the mind boggles

Are you serious? You keep questioning why any left winger scientist shouldn't be put under the same scrutiny as Gaskell, using only marxists as examples. What else am I to take from that besides marxist = left wing?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wow, you really are selectively reading me, I was explaining what other
people, not me, other people would use to justify arguing that we should
kick out professors with a left-wing (marxist) bias.

Ok you are trolling now. Left wing with the word marxist in brackets, but you aren't saying that left = marxist?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly if you thought
I was making that argument (compelling or not) you are clearly not reading
my posts properly & instead are fishing for things to use against me &
basically just showing that it's got nothing to do with my arguments
(because you're misreading them) and just having a go. This is pointless
if you're going to read my posts and assume I am making the arguments
that I'm actually trying to dismiss - just a serious example of you
misreading me.

Are you even reading your own posts? You described some marxists as being antiscience, and use this to question why they weren't purged because of what someone said 80 years ago. As I already said, going along with what you are saying, all you are left with is evalution of marxists, individually, on their own merits. Some dont actually understand science, then they dont get to be scientists. Others do, so they can be scientists. Evaluate everyone on their own merits.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Apparently people can, and do - it's called a double standard. This is the
answer I'd give you if I copied the way you've been responding to some
of my points, but no I still see the point you're making & will answer it.
I agree you can't say one applies in one field & not the other if you want
to be consistent but I haven't read anyone claim such a thing :pac: and
even still - if such a person appeared I'd still argue that their personal
opinions on a topic that has absolutely no relevance to the job they are
applying for should have no relevance to whether or not they get the
job since it impinges on their democratic rights to hold contrary opinions
& in no way influences the work they are required to do.

Someones democratic right to hold an opinion doesn't displace someone else democratic right to tell them their opinion is wrong and if that opinion is relevent to what they do professionally (if you want to be a scientist, then understanding that science applies everywhere, not just outside of where your religion wants it) then an employer has a right to not hire that person.

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

You asked for some examples of religious beliefs, and I gave them -- no sidestep at all

Actually I didn't ask for "examples of religious beliefs". I asked you to specify which ones warranted employment discrimination. Your response is childish - you picked some extreme examples and attempted to use that to justify your position.

Sidestepping the verbal trap you've tried to set,

Which verbal trap is that? I didn't deliberately set one, but if I unwittingly did, then point it out and I will acknowledge.

I'll give a jesuitical answer -- No, I don't think that people should be disqualified from medicine or biology, because (a) there is the mildest of evidence that these events actually did happen, (b) these events only happened once, and to highly specific people; they are not general phenomena that the average christian believer believes can happen in the normal course of events and (c) I'm inclined to think that many christian believers don't really believe these things to start with.

so you think that there is more convincing evidence out there for the resurrection/virgin birth than there is for divine creation? Interesting. What evidence is that? Personally, I find all three of these supposed occurrences equally ludicrous and unscientific

As for your argument about the special and personal nature of the resurrection/virgin birth, all I can say is "What????" That is clearly a case of scraping the barrel for arguments to justify an untenable position. What difference does the scale of the event make to its scientific implications? Believing in the virgin birth has exactly the same consequences for your scientific integrity as believing in divine creation. Both are one off events that are alleged to have happened thousands or billions of years ago. Both are logically possible but have no empirical evidence to back them up.

I suspect that it is the scale of the alleged events that makes you feel justified in that argument.

"disallowed"? I simply wouldn't hire a statistician who didn't know his job. If other people want to hire crappy mathematicians, it's entirely up to them.

I presume that you are aware of Rips. He is one of the world's outstanding algebraists while simultaneously holding several wacky (in my opinion at least) beliefs about bible codes.

By their fruits ye shall know them (Mat 7:20).Because if Gaskell supports ID, then de-facto, he does not understand science.

This is fallacious reasoning. Belief in divine creation is not logically inconsistent with a scientific understanding of the universe. Presumably you know that, so why are you claiming otherwise.

And yes, they are subjective views, but that doesn't make them wrong, or even inaccurate.

I did not claim that it made them wrong. However, it does make them more inappropriate when it comes to making decisions about hiring someone. I might believe that a person is a complete tit. I might even be right about that, but that should not influence my decision to hire that person for a job for which complete titness is not a disqualifier. Even complete tits are entitled to fair treatment in hiring procedures.

Yes, it is a dangerous path, however, it's a path that's been trod by religious people at the behest of religious leaders eager to acquire temporal power by the easiest means possible.

So???? Is that a justification for non religious people to do the same thing?

In philosophical terms, it's referred to as the Problem of Authority, and it's a well-known and well-discussed dilemma within political science:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/

Thank you for the condescension - I feel better now;)

Zombrex

equivariant wrote: »

Belief in divine creation is not logically inconsistent with a scientific understanding of the universe.

Belief that one can accurately determine a divine being created the universe without requiring scientific assessment is inconsistent with the idea that we require scientific assessment to accurately judge theories of the universe, which is a corner stone of science, it is why science is deemed necessary in the first place.

If you think I'm wrong explain what the purpose of science is if people can accurately figure out something as monumental as "God made the universe" without requiring science.

And yes, before you say it a lot of scientists are being inconsistent, the issue is how far they push this inconsistency. This guy has pushed it far to far in my view.

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By adding "for example" you change the strength of your comparison of left wingers and marxists. Without "for example", you are declaring left wingers to be marxist ("X" should happen to left wingers, since marxists are "Y"), with "for example" the declaration is that marxists are a subset of left wingers. Even if what you meant was that any left winger should be under the same scrutiny as the scientist in the OP, because some marxists (one example of left wingers) sometimes disregard science when it suits them, then you would still be wrong. Even if some marxists disregard science, this has no immediate bearing on what other marxist think of science and certianly no bearing on what other lefties think of it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Without the bolded and blued words, your point implies something completely different, I just read it as you wrote it.

Ok first lets put things in context. You said:

Mark Hamill wrote:

"I, personally, wouldn't trust someone like that to continue being objective
and scientific in other fields of science. He ignores science in favour of
religion in evolution, how long before it suits him to do the same in
astronomy?"

I replied with:

sponsoredwalk wrote:

Mark your argument that he might succumb to unwarranted religious bias in
astronomy is so wide that it could be equally applied to someone who is
left-wing since you could argue that while marxism is fundamentally rooted
in scientific inquiry it also rejects certain aspects of the foundations of
science and as such any left-wing "loony" could potentially indoctrinate
students.

You respond with this "marxism = left" nonsense, I replied with:

sponsoredwalk wrote:

Mark your argument that he might succumb to unwarranted religious bias
in astronomy is so wide that it could be equally applied to someone who is
left-wing since you could argue that, for example, while marxism is
fundamentally rooted in scientific inquiry it also rejects certain aspects of
the foundations ofscience and as such any left-wing "loony" could
potentially indoctrinate students. Similarly, you could argue that any
left-wing scientist could potentially ignore facts that do not fit
his/her ideological framework as a means to get rid of them.

because you chose then, and still continue, to ignore the point I was
making about the serious flaw in your argument and sidetrack me away
from the challenge with this trivial and easily-answered nonsense.

Also, I explicitly asked you to highlight the difference between the original
post and the new post but you instead respond just telling us that it is,
somehow, with absolutely no explanation - & then pull out some reverse
trolling by accusing me of trolling after completely sidetracking me away
from my point with nonsense.

I mean why didn't you ask the obvious things any self-critical person
would? Why not ask 'Why is sponsoredwalk saying that left = marxist in a
discussion strictly involving science?' or 'Why is sponsoredwalk saying that
left = marxist when it is simply not true that everything leftwing is scientific?'
Reason would tell you that since this is the case he must mean something
specific about marxists when he mentions them. But all of your posts
convey the fact that you hadn't a clue what I was talking about
& why you were replying is a curiousity. Maybe if you'd been sidetracking
me with marxist = leftwing science I'd understand you being confused
and genuinely asking me about this point but instead you pick the
most trivial thing I've ever witnessed on boards & coincidentally it
serves the useful purpose of diverting the attention from your earlier
comment that it was specifically responding to.

So I'll elaborate further on what I've already said - I challenge you to find
the exact point when I 'shift my goalposts' not only when I added "for
example" but now as I explain:

If some finding were contrary to Marx's claims then maybe the person
might maybe suppress it? If some claim came along invalidating marxism
maybe that scientist would suppress it on ideological grounds in the way
a religious person might suppress scientific findings on ideological grounds.
Is that clear? Based on the potential that contrary findings to marx's
claims some marxist social scientist or economist etc... could potentially
suppress these contrary findings or ignore then for ideological reasons
in the way you claim Gaskell ignores an unrelated area of science &
could potentially start doing it in his own field.
I'm sorry but that's just the logic of your argument, read it:

Mark Hamill wrote:

"I, personally, wouldn't trust someone like that to continue being objective
and scientific in other fields of science. He ignores science in favour of
religion in evolution, how long before it suits him to do the same in
astronomy?"

Lets get specific - if leftwing scientist X discovers something that
contradicts some core tenet of marxist theory he may suppress this
finding due to his ideological bias. Furthermore, to specifically illustrate
your comment "He ignores science in favour of religion in evolution, how
long before it suits him to do the same in astronomy?" I mentioned Karl
Popper because someone with a grudge against marxists could invoke
the many arguments of Karl Popper et. al to claim that this marxist
"ignores science" in favour of religion political ideology.

So your comments such as:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you serious? You keep questioning why any left winger scientist shouldn't be put under the same scrutiny as Gaskell, using only marxists as examples. What else am I to take from that besides marxist = left wing?

&

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Left wing with the word marxist in brackets, but you aren't saying that left = marxist?

&

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you even reading your own posts? You described some marxists as being antiscience, and use this to question why they weren't purged because of what someone said 80 years ago. As I already said, going along with what you are saying, all you are left with is evalution of marxists, individually, on their own merits. Some dont actually understand science, then they dont get to be scientists. Others do, so they can be scientists. Evaluate everyone on their own merits.

illustrate explicitly that you haven't been following me at all. What it
further tells us is that you think I am making arguments that, if you
bothered reading me properly, you'd see I was dismissing as horrendous
because they follow from your own logic.

I predict some games from this such as quoting the above in blue with
"how so" or some nonsense even though I've explained it above so I'll be
100% clear:

"I, personally, wouldn't trust someone like that to continue being objective
and scientific in other fields of science. He ignores science in favour of
Political ideology in economics, how long before it
suits him to do the same in social science or political science?"

It's just a paraphrase of your words applied to some leftwing social
scientist. If we are ideologically steeped in a particular school of thought,
i.e. along the lines of Popper - which many are, by your logic they should
be purged just as you'd have Gaskell purged. Anyone can see the clear
nonsense of this & you don't even have people ideologically inclined
towards Popper who do this but when evolution and religion are involved
all logic is out the window & anything goes if it can be pseudo-cloaked in
the cloth of science.

To be even clearer:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if what you meant was that any left winger should be under the same scrutiny as the scientist in the OP, because some marxists (one example of left wingers) sometimes disregard science when it suits them, then you
would still be wrong.
Even if some marxists disregard science, this has no immediate bearing on
what other marxist think of science and certianly no bearing on what other
lefties think of it.

The fact that you think I am making the argument that because some
marxists disregard science it generalizes to all marxists just shows how
unbelievably wrong you are about what I've been saying. The logic of
your statement "He ignores science in favour of religion in evolution, how
long before it suits him to do the same inastronomy?" applied outside
of evolution to some marxist could stupidly be applied by someone with
a grudge just as you do to Gaskell - but apparently that point hasn't
sunk in yet...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Someones democratic right to hold an opinion doesn't displace someone else democratic right to tell them their opinion is wrong and if that opinion is relevent to what they do professionally (if you want to be a scientist, then understanding that science applies everywhere, not just outside of where your religion wants it) then an employer has a right to not hire that person.

Absolute nonsense, you are misleading us when you tell us that his opinion
is relevant to what he does professionally. His opinion on evolution is not
relevant. This blanket claim of him being a scientist somehow implying
that he must accept evolution is nonsense - I haven't read anyone in
this thread justify their argument yet - all I've read is some of you
repeat this mantra. I've continually told you that the mans astronomical
work - in which he's become professional in while holding communist
unscientific views - is irrelevant, why? Because there is absolutely no
causal link between black holes, stellar evolution, solar system evolution,
etc... and evolution. In fact, just show us:

1
2
3

The causal link! (Waits for someone to mention the chapters with the words "evolution" in
the title as evidence). The thing is that I actually know about astronomy &
see this, I can't help it if you don't but your blanket arguments are still
waifer thin & are being used in the way McCarthy-esque tripe was used
against nobel peace prize winners, accomplished physicists etc..

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As I already said, going along with what you are saying, all you are left with is evalution of marxists, individually, on their own merits. Some dont actually understand science, then they dont get to be scientists. Others do, so they can be scientists. Evaluate everyone on their own merits.

Put on your scientist hats, each and every one of you. We'll check the
evidence supporting the claim about what a scientist should and should
not be - if you were right then:

a) There's be no scientists with crazy views
b) None of these scientists would be successful in the field of study that
is directly linked to their crazy views (i.e. an evolution denying biologist)
c) None of these crazy-viewed scientists would be successful in areas of
science that have no relationship to their crazy views.

Lets try to find an example of a scientist that doesn't understand science
applies everywhere... Found some, even just use Robin's Macintosh guy...
I guess your argument is proven wrong using evidence, I'm sure you'll now
change your opinion seeing as the evidence indicates you were wrong :rolleyes:
This goes for everyone btw, I still have to read an actual justification for
this blanket-assertion about what a scientist should and should not do. I
not only have logic to argue my case but I have examples of scientists
who are bat-**** crazy and yet still are successful scientists, I have
universities telling you all that a scientists work is in no way related to his
religious opinions & I have scientists defending a YEC's scientific work as
impeccable indicating that in fact these nutjobs can do scientific work,
ergo they can be scientists, showing that these people can be scientists in
a field of study that their religion tells them otherwise - despite us all being
told that:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(if you want to be a scientist, then understanding that science applies everywhere, not just outside of where your religion wants it)

All this evidence yet still subjective claims of a personal nature about what
Mr. scientist in the vacuum must conform to, I have to agree with UoL et.
al that this is just wrong. The criteria for who becomes a scientist is to
evaluate them:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

individually, on their own merits

unlike the way you've evaluated an extremely accomplished astronomer
not on the merits of his astronomical work but instead chose to evaluate
him on his unrelated personal beliefs that impinge in no way whatsoever
on his scientific work - as his academic credentials (and those of other
bat-**** crazy scientists) illustrate.

Mark Hamill

post edited for length

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Ok first lets put things in context.

.....

because you chose then, and still continue, to ignore the point I was
making about the serious flaw in your argument and sidetrack me away
from the challenge with this trivial and easily-answered nonsense.

I didn't ignore the point. You just hadn't expressed your point clearly at all.
As for the point you now highlight (Similarly, you could argue that any
left-wing scientist could potentially ignore facts that do not fit
his/her ideological framework as a means to get rid of them.), you are still wrong. Firstly because left wing does not imply science denier, and secondly, in the case of Gaskell, he already was ignoring science in order to fit his ideological framework.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Also, I explicitly asked you to highlight the difference between the original
post and the new post but you instead respond just telling us that it is,
somehow, with absolutely no explanation - & then pull out some reverse
trolling by accusing me of trolling after completely sidetracking me away
from my point with nonsense.

I already explained this (you quoted it first, at the top). Your assertion here that I did not is disingenuous, to say the least.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I mean why didn't you ask the obvious things any self-critical person
would? Why not ask 'Why is sponsoredwalk saying that left = marxist in a
discussion strictly involving science?' or 'Why is sponsoredwalk saying that
left = marxist when it is simply not true that everything leftwing is scientific?'

I did ask this. My first post on this was a question, "left wing=marxist?" Instead of just simply saying thats not what you meant, and clarifying, you have decided to get insulted at the idea and have insisted, despite what you originally wrote still being visible to all, that there is no way that is what you meant.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If some finding were contrary to Marx's claims then maybe the person
might maybe suppress it?
....
I'm sorry but that's just the logic of your argument, read it:

Dont understand the issue. If someone cant be seen to be impartial and objective to science, then why exactly should they get to work in it?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Lets get specific - if leftwing scientist X discovers something that
contradicts some core tenet of marxist theory he may suppress this
finding due to his ideological bias. Furthermore, to specifically illustrate
your comment "He ignores science in favour of religion in evolution, how
long before it suits him to do the same in astronomy?" I mentioned Karl
Popper because someone with a grudge against marxists could invoke
the many arguments of Karl Popper et. al to claim that this marxist
"ignores science" in favour of religion political ideology.

If you aren't implying left wing=marxist, then why do you keep describing left wings as to holding to marxism?
If a scientist ignores established science in one field because of an ideology, then his ability to objectively work in any field is called into question.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's just a paraphrase of your words applied to some leftwing social
scientist. If we are ideologically steeped in a particular school of thought,
i.e. along the lines of Popper - which many are, by your logic they should
be purged just as you'd have Gaskell purged. Anyone can see the clear
nonsense of this & you don't even have people ideologically inclined
towards Popper who do this but when evolution and religion are involved
all logic is out the window & anything goes if it can be pseudo-cloaked in
the cloth of science.

If someone is ideologically steeped to the point of creating a fundamental conflict in what we want to be true and what we are working as, then yes they should be purged. Its a massive contradiction to be a scientist and a creationist. All the fundamental scientific principles which vindicate Gaskells astronomy, contradict, on so many levels, his creationist beliefs and yet he holds to them regardless. It is not a trait that should be present in a scientist.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Absolute nonsense, you are misleading us when you tell us that his opinion
is relevant to what he does professionally. His opinion on evolution is not
relevant. This blanket claim of him being a scientist somehow implying
that he must accept evolution is nonsense - I haven't read anyone in
this thread justify their argument yet - all I've read is some of you
repeat this mantra.

Because you are, possible by accident, misreading us. No one is saying that because he a scientist that he must accept evolution. We are saying that because he is a scientist, that he must be scientific in everything he does. If he had a scientific reason to dispute evolution, then there would be no issue, but he doesn't. Its entirely ideological and completely disingenuous for him to claim to be a scientist. You cant just be a scientist when it suits you.

Dont have time to answer the rest, will pick up later.

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I've continually told you that the mans astronomical
work
.....
I can't help it if you don't but your blanket arguments are still
waifer thin & are being used in the way McCarthy-esque tripe was used
against nobel peace prize winners, accomplished physicists etc..

You havent spent neary enough time in threads with JC if you think that evolution denial and astronomy denial go hand in hand. Creationists belief that the earth is 6000 years old, its one of their main arguments against evolution, they dont think there is time enough for it to happen. Go to answersingenesis and you will see blind ignorant contridictions of every science field-chemistry, biology, physcis, geology, zoology, archaeology etc. To be a creationist is to deny all science.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Put on your scientist hats, each and every one of you. We'll check the
evidence supporting the claim about what a scientist should and should
not be - if you were right then:

a) There's be no scientists with crazy views
b) None of these scientists would be successful in the field of study that
is directly linked to their crazy views (i.e. an evolution denying biologist)
c) None of these crazy-viewed scientists would be successful in areas of
science that have no relationship to their crazy views.

Every field has an effect on every other field. Who do you think invented MRi machines that medicinal scientists use? Who do you think developed the statistical methods that pretty much any scientists uses for analysis of results? If a scientists holds a "crazy" view, offering clearly unscientific evidence for it, then they forfit their scientific position. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with the scientific consensus in every area, but it does mean you need to have scientific reasons for disagreeing with them.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Lets try to find an example of a scientist that doesn't understand science
applies everywhere... Found some, even just use Robin's Macintosh guy...

A list of people who cant, honestly, be considered scientists.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

All this evidence yet still subjective claims of a personal nature about what
Mr. scientist in the vacuum must conform to, I have to agree with UoL et.
al that this is just wrong.

This is not subjective. There is a definition of science, there are things you need to adhere to in order to be doing science. In order to be a scientist, you need to apply this professionally, if you dont, if you ignore science in favour of agenda, then you are not a scientist, regardless of what you call yourself, no more than Gillian McKeith is a real doctor simply because she bought a PhD.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

The criteria for who becomes a scientist is to
evaluate them:

unlike the way you've evaluated an extremely accomplished astronomer
not on the merits of his astronomical work but instead chose to evaluate
him on his unrelated personal beliefs that impinge in no way whatsoever
on his scientific work - as his academic credentials (and those of other
bat-**** crazy scientists) illustrate.

He was evaluated on his own merits. He was found to be lacking. Remember, there is no one science for astronomy, one for biology, they are one in the same. Lacking in one area, means lacking in another.