All those liars for Jesus
by KrauzeNews of a young-earth creationist having earned a Ph.D. in paleontology have put ID critics around the blogosphere in a flutter. Larry Moran, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto, wastes no time in accusing the creationist, Marcus Ross, of dishonesty:
Marcus Ross thinks it's okay to write a thesis about 65 million year old reptiles when, in fact, he doesn't believe a word of it. He justifies this by referring to "different paradigms." Apparently, there's one kind of "paradigm" when you are trying to get your Professors to give you a Ph.D. and another kind of "paradigm" at all other times. This is just a euphemism for "lying." In this case, it's lying for Jesus.
Other critics echoing the "Marcus Ross is a liar!" meme is Paul Z. Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota, John M. Lynch, an evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University, and Jason Rosenhouse, a professor of mathematics at James Madison University.
Let me remind the critics of something called methodological naturalism, a concept they themselves have been advocating to Christian scientists for years. According to methodological naturalism, you are perfectly free to privately believe that God answers prayers and cures diseases, but when you step into the laboratory, you better act as if there is only blind, natural forces at play. As Steven D. Schafersman, professor of geology at Miami University, puts it,
methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed, since the various methods and necessary underlying epistemologies of science cannot operate in a supernaturalistic framework. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.
Marcus Ross simply behaved like a good methodological naturalists, conducting his research as if the reptiles he studied were 65 million years old.
It's nice to know what the Drs. Moran, Myers, Lynch, and Rosenhouse really think of scientists who adopt methodological naturalism. I wonder how long it will be before theistic evolutionists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins are accused of "lying for Jesus"
February 13th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Nothing like the sound of shrill accusations in the morning. Remember, that ID critics will accuse you of "lying" for simply making a mistake. The tactic has long been to toss out gobs of "Liar Liar!" accusations in the hope that some will stick.
We're probably dealing with people who are threatened by others who think differently than they do. Some creationist got a PhD [gasp] and is now teaching at Liberty University. And this frightens them.
Comment by MikeGene — February 13, 2007 @ 6:55 am
February 13th, 2007 at 6:55 am
I thought methodological naturalism was about getting the data right in spite of your personal feelings about it. Can anyone explain how a test of one's personal beliefs advances science?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 6:55 am
February 13th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Krauze made a very good point in his original blog about this:
Comment by MikeGene — February 13, 2007 @ 7:06 am
February 13th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Ross is intentionally lying?
That smacks of agency.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2007 @ 9:32 am
February 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Perhaps Moran, Myers, Lynch, and Rosenhouse should get together and write up a catechism that all graduates must memorize and recite before they're allowed to get their PhDs. But what if mostly like-minded professors at other universities disagree with them over minor doctrinal issues, and want to change it? I'll bet this is how the Atheist Wars from Southpark begin.
Comment by Deuce — February 13, 2007 @ 10:03 am
February 13th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Burn the heretic!
Comment by macht — February 13, 2007 @ 10:12 am
February 13th, 2007 at 10:34 am
In all seriousness, I can't believe these guys can't see methodological naturalism when it is right in front of their face. I'm not sure you could find a better example of MN. And the article makes it pretty clear that Ross lied to nobody, that he was upfront about what he believed while he was applying to the school.
Comment by macht — February 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am
February 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Science in it's current formulation is not about what is true. Only about what is explainable.
Comment by chunkdz — February 13, 2007 @ 10:45 am
February 13th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Macht:
Well, keep in mind that several of these guys never claimed to be proponents of methodological naturalism in the first place, but rather have always shown a desire to persecute those with whom they disagree out of science. Hence, they're not doing anything you wouldn't expect, though it's still worth noting what a bunch of insecure and illiberal fanatics they are. As for those who have talked the whole MN/PN game, but come down against Ross, this does indeed call their bluff.
Comment by Deuce — February 13, 2007 @ 11:37 am
February 13th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I believe that Marcus Ross's job in earning his PhD is to declare to his coleagues that he is fully versed in the state of the art. As such, he must be able to fully communicate the state of the art. I see no issue with that. If he now wants to push the threshold of paleontology, he has demonstrated that he has the information provided by those who have gone before so that he can do so compentantly. My cheer for Dr. Ross is "go for it!, push the envelope!" (Maybe Dr. Ross will provide a good explanation for why they found dry blood on T.Rex bones.)
Comment by bFast — February 13, 2007 @ 11:39 am
February 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I have mixed feelings about this. It reminds me of the decredited Medieval concept of "double truth". I am not saying that Ross is going that far, undoubtedly he really believes the earth and universe are somewhere around 10,000 yo. It is that "belief" that I find troubling. Is it simply a belief of is it something that can be proven empirically? A lot of YEC's will claim the latter. What does Dr. Ross think? If he really believes that the earth is only 10,000 yo is he now going to defend and advocate that view?Personally, I no longer waste my time on YEC literature because I find the evidence to be so overwhelming, convincing and compelling that the earth and universe are very old that every YEC argument I've seen strains credulity. On the other hand, I am a staunch advocate of religious freedom and tolerance I am glad that the anti-religious bigots were not able to interfere with this one.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 13, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I've been defending Ross hither and yon, but there is one comment on Larry Moran's hideous blog that I actually agree with:
I would have to give an amen to that. Ever improving radiometric dating with different nuclei, other geological dating, astronomical, astrophysical, and cosmological methods"”how can one who understands the science behind all these conclude that they not only wrong, but have conspired to give the same wrong answer? It certainly makes my mind reel, although I've encountered it many times.
So while I am as adamant as any of his other supporters that Ross did nothing dishonest, and he deserves his Ph.D., I am saddened that he'll be teaching science.
And I'm even sadder that most Christians schools have almost no science to speak of, and here one of the few that does has a sizable science presence (Liberty) demands a YEC perspective. Madness.
Comment by David Heddle — February 13, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
David Heddle:
It's not that difficult to maintain a healthy level of skepticism about the transient, ever-changing and always provisional conclusions of science drawn upon particular evidences, David. In fact, that's entirely to be expected in any actually-knowledgeable scientist (as opposed to deluded TrueBelievers in scientism). Why, the age of the universe has changed so many times since I've been paying attention that I qualify any estimates put forward in whatever I'm saying about it. Interpretational fads come and go, just like bellbottoms and platform shoes.
Truth is, there are wide margins of error in radiometric dating that fairly demand results be taken with a large grain of salt. All based upon gratuitous assumptions that often turn out to have been completely unwarranted. I'm not saying the planetary system/universe aren't a whole lot more ancient than 10,000 years (which is a theological interpretational error, IMO), I'm saying that assumptions now known to be false remain in the canon of sciences for no better reason than nobody's bothered to take the requisite time and trouble to rewrite the canons.
This reality won't reconcile YEC with 'orthodox' geoscience, but I also don't presume that Ross isn't fully qualified to teach the subject - even to YECs, if he's got the integrity to give it his best shot. And I don't presume a lack of integrity either, though there are plenty of loudmouths out there who do. Personal metaphysical beliefs are irrelevant to science - or, are supposed to be. I'm guessing Ross couldn't get a job teaching geoscience at his alma mater no matter how 'impeccable' his science, due to this blatant character assassination and bigotry. So he can teach at Liberty.
Are you claiming to know that he will not be teaching the geoscience he earned his master's and doctoral degrees in, just because it's Liberty? If so, how [exactly] do you come by that knowledge?
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
If you are a science student who suspects design, here are your prospects:
- As an undergraduate student, you should be flunked.
- Your university must prevent you from taking a PhD, and if they fail at that, they should revoke it.
- If you apply for a job in academia, don't expect to be hired.
- If you start researching intelligent design, other researchers will demand that you be kicked out of the lab.
But apart from that, I don't understand why more scientists aren't looking into this ID stuff.
Comment by Krauze — February 13, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
This reality won't reconcile YEC with 'orthodox' geoscience, but I also don't presume that Ross isn't fully qualified to teach the subject - even to YECs, if he's got the integrity to give it his best shot.I agree with Joy. It seems to me that if you accept David's position then you must also argue that PZ Meyers and his ilk are unqualified to teach as they are likely to bring their non-scientific metaphysics into the classroom.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
As I posted to Larry Moran's blog:
(Disclaimer: I think YEC is codswallop.)
Comment by obrienr — February 13, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
So Larry Moran now joins PZ and Eugenie Scott in rejecting methodological naturalism?
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Marcus Ross was always open about his YEC views. It is not like he completed his disseration, recieved his Ph.D. and then revealed his YEC views.
For all you folks who feel the need to give a disclaimer about your beliefs concerning YEC, what is up with that?
Comment by Jehu — February 13, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
All those liars for anti-IDism
Since,
"The existence of the genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter. There is nothing in the non-living physico-chemical world that remotely resembles the reactions that are determined by a sequence and codes between sequences that occur in living matter."
Then,
Methodological naturalism must be abandoned as a strategy or working hypothesis for molecular biology or biochemistry to succeed, since the various methods and necessary underlying epistemologies of genetics cannot operate in a strictly reductionistic and naturalistic framework. We may therefore be agnostic about the identity of the intelligent cause of life, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate life as if it is designed.
As history has instructed us:
"The scientists who discovered the nature of the genetic code had coding analogy constantly in mind, as the vocabulary they used to describe their discoveries makes clear"¦. If, instead, the problem had been treated as one of the chemistry of protein-RNA interactions, we might still be waiting for an answer."
For more, and quote sources, see here.
Comment by Joseph C. Campana — February 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
This is stupid. Methodological naturalism means doing science without invoking supernatural entities or explanations. It doesn't mean that you can can keep two versions of the facts in your head. YEC is counter to the facts of nature, whereas other religious beliefs (Deism for instance) are compatible with it. What's so hard to understand about that?
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
What needs to be done now that ideology is apparently essential in science, and an acceptable grounds to challenge research and results on, is to encourage the womens studies departments and other fluffy humanities departments, that much of science is anti-feminist and so on.
Then Mr Meyers and his ilk will be backed into an amusing corner. After all, they already admit that ideology is critical to the practice of science and that they are all scientific anti-realists, so the truth of the matter is itself irrelevant.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 13, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
The fact that Ross was open about his YECism from day one is irrelevant. We don't accuse scientists of fraud or academic dishonesty if they lie about their weight or their sexual habits. We reserve those accusations for when a scientist is dishonest in a way that influences the outcome of his research, such as by faking data or tossing out results that go against his thesis.
But, as defenders of methodological naturalism have shown us, your own opinion about the validity of your thesis does not influence the outcome of your research. So it doesn't really matter whether Ross had been open about his beliefs or not. Considering that someone like Moran considers accept of ID sufficient ground for flunking a student, I wouldn't blame Ross if he had kept it a secret.
Comment by Krauze — February 13, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Jehu:
Am I guilty? Perhaps so, by virtue of my statement that interpretations to a 6-10,000 year old universe look like theological error to me.
But that's what it looks like to me, even though there's a corner of mind that is reserved for surprise findings - I can think of several that would make me have to reconsider. Any real scientist would also have to keep that salt-lick handy somewhere in his/her mind, or s/he's got no business claiming to be a scientist. [My disclaimer here: I don't claim to be a 'real scientist', I just lucked into the mindset/philosophy early in life and never managed to grow out of it].
There are lots and lots of intriguing anomalies and circular constructs in the dating of rocks and fossils as well as in the interpretations that are drawn in spite of them. Which now seem to change on a regular basis if you're looking at single issues - the relative constancy of alpha, the type of elements present in given eras for deposition, whether or not certain elements can be assumed in-situ daughters, if we're descended from Neandertal, etc. Heck, just last week they found meteorites in Antarctica that are dated as older than the sun. Eventually we will have sub-specialized so pointedly for so long that some 'Renaissance' types will come along and refigure the overviews. That should happen every few generations at least at the discovery pace we've been going.
If in the end it's all ~10K years old (as the world turns, uniformitarianly speaking), I'll be surprised but not entirely devastated - I'll laugh, because it would be sincerely funny. The homestead looks to be a bit older than that to me, and I wasn't raised to believe the Bible tells me different.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
This is stupid. Methodological naturalism means doing science without invoking supernatural entities or explanations. It doesn't mean that you can can keep two versions of the facts in your head.
Methodological naturalism entails following a trail of evidence to where it leads. You can keep anything you wish in your head so long as you are objective in your assessment of data.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
You know, this Marcus Ross story was on the front page of the New York Times, above the fold. I find that very interesting.
Comment by Jehu — February 13, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Hi Mtraven,
"It doesn't mean that you can can keep two versions of the facts in your head."
Apparently you can: Despite all the indignation, none of the critics have shown any serious errors in Ross' dissertation that were brought on by his YECism. In fact, according to his advisor, it was "impeccable". So it looks like Ross managed having "two versions of the fact" just fine.
Comment by Krauze — February 13, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Bradford wrote:
Methodological naturalism entails following a trail of evidence to where it leads. You can keep anything you wish in your head so long as you are objective in your assessment of data.
I think this reveals that there are actually two forms of Methodologiical Naturalism: the "bottom up" or "soft form" which simply follows the evidence where ever it leads, and the "top down" Eugenie Scott "hard form" which insists scientists must pretend or assume nothing supernatural exists. IMO the hard form is not methodological at all, but a rhetorical device to, not so subtlely, smuggle metaphyics in through the back door. In other words, in denying a certain metaphysical position one is actually doing metaphysics. Mehodological simply mean that one is honest, open minded and empirically objective in how one follows the evidence.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 13, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Krauze: you are misinterpreting my use of "can". Obviously it is possible to hold two contradictory models of the world in your head. The question is whether you can do that and still be considered a sane and honest member of the scientific community.
It all seems very postmodernist to me, this view that you can juggle different world models around and use whichever one you feel like using at a particular time.
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
It comes down to whether there is truly more to evidence than the evidence. Since we are dealing with historical science, a lot of the data can be interpreted in different ways. It's not like there are any video tapes around.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
If methodological naturalism turned up evidence for God, then by definition God would be natural rather than supernatural.
BTW, the very concept of methodological naturalism was developed by evangelicals. Now you guys seem to think it's a conspiracy against you.
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
mtraven:
Hello, mtraven. I don't see what's so difficult in the proposition. If I work for a corporate conglomerate I may or may not 'believe-in' their economic model, their plans for expansion, their methods for achieving supposed 'productivity' results from the workforce or their creative accounting practices. It's a day job - I put in my time and they pay what they think it's worth (usually less than I think it's worth). Ho, hum.
I go home to husband and whatever offspring are around, who I believe very strongly are the most beautiful, accomplished, talented and fascinating people on the planet. There may be nobody outside the property line who believe that, but it's not at all likely to affect my opinion on the matter.
I can even pay good, hard-earned money to go see some movie 'everybody' believes is the greatest statement ever made on whatever subject it tackles, and not like it at all. Sometimes I'll demand my money back, but mostly I just leave disgruntled at 'everybody's' stupidity and that's that.
It's not the least bit difficult to compartmentalize mind per actions and beliefs, especially in as complex and multi-disciplined as our small world is these days. Why anyone would insist not so is a mystery to me, but there you have it in a nutshell. Conformity of beliefs is an authoritarian dream, but it's not a long-term practical means of ruling the world. Or even any small portion of it.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
If that is true then that explains why it's being rejected by Moran et. al.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Krauze: you are misinterpreting my use of "can". Obviously it is possible to hold two contradictory models of the world in your head. The question is whether you can do that and still be considered a sane and honest member of the scientific community.
But what constitutes sanity and honesty and who is the judge? By all objective standards there is no evidence of dishonesty. There may however be a lack of imagination on the part of those who would accuse. Ross may consider that time is judged according to a clock that ticks in heaven or some other place. The point though, is that it does not matter. What really matters is keeping ideological zealots from pushing us toward thought policing. Private beliefs should be respected. As long as they do not interfere with good science, they are noone's business.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
mtraven,
Are you're reasons for being here more noble?
I hope so.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
If methodological naturalism turned up evidence for God, then by definition God would be natural rather than supernatural.
That's a good reason to infer intelligence and not God.:smile:
BTW, the very concept of methodological naturalism was developed by evangelicals. Now you guys seem to think it's a conspiracy against you.
No conspiracy as long as you lay off the attacks on private beliefs.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Methodological naturalism will never discover God directly. But maybe indirectly. When the assumptions of methodological naturalism can't account for the extremes; the origin of life, origin of the cosmos, origin of rational thought, why rational thought gives us insight into the universe, why the universe follows immutable laws and why those laws are discernible to rational thought. Then maybe the limited scope of MN will become more apparent, then another set of assumptions will replace it that are more apt to handle these issues.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Bradford: yes, either intelligence or God, the point is that MN discovers natural entities. If, somehow, we turned up evidence for an intelligent creator, then that intelligence would be part of nature and subject to further scientific investigation. Of the examples you give, most are amenable to naturalistic explanation ("origin of life") while others seem to require breaking out into metaphysics ("origin of the cosmos").
Joy: yes, people compartmentalize all the time, it's true. But usually their differing compartmentalizations do not involve bald factual contradictions. I can believe my children are extra-special or ordinary or evolved bipeds or little angels depending on circumstances, but that is different than believing the earth is 10000 years old on Sunday and 4.5 billion years old on Monday.
Doug: nope, not much nobility, I just like to argue. I hope it's done in an entertaining and educational manner.
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Good enough.
Who is this to? I'm Catholic and I have never come across an objection in my school or in my theological discussions with clergy that the universe is what Bishop Ussher believed it to be.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
mtravin, "most are amenable to naturalistic explanation ("origin of life")" I'm still waiting for that one. Just because there are people trying to find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, that doesn't mean that they will succeed.
Comment by bFast — February 13, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Whether methodological naturalism is sensible or not isn't really the issue here. My view is that for most proponents of it, it's an attempt to push logical positivism, while trying to absolve themselves of the need to rationally justify it, by insisting that it's only a methodology and not a statement of truth, when in fact they do consider it a statement of truth, and expect people to accept the conclusions reached by it as true (as we can see from the behavior of supposed MN proponents that are attacking Ross).
Regardless though, the MN/PN distinction is what has been pushed by a lot of the critics as a means of insisting on materialism in science, while simultaneously maintaining that this doesn't conflict with non-materialist religious views and attempting to avoid the charge that they are begging the question in favor of materialism. Since they're just pretending that materialism is true for the sake of argument, rather than asserting that it is true, so the logic goes, then they can't be begging the question, and the conclusions they come up with are only hypotheticals based on these assumptions, rather than objective truth, and thus don't conflict with non-materialist beliefs being true.
Now, if somebody thinks this is silly, and that science is, or ought to be, about finding objective truth through rational inquiry, then they can argue that, but then they are obligated to not insist that science work from materialist assumptions, as that then becomes question begging (it also becomes logical positivism). The attempt to do both - to hold that science is a rational search for truth, while also declaring by definitional fiat that science proceeds from materialist assumptions - that is a kind of post-modernist relativism, the idea that you can just define your own truth instead of discovering the truth.
Comment by Deuce — February 13, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy, you're missing David's main point:
When so many independent methods yield the same result, you know you're onto something. After all, what are the odds that all of these methods are wrong, each for a different reason, yet all of them producing the same answer? Infinitesimal.
Jehu asks:
Jehu,
If the YEC view is correct, then not only are all of science's diverse methods and independent lines of evidence giving the wrong answer, but they are off by 45 million percent.
To put that discrepancy into perspective, it's as if science is saying that the moon is 250,000 miles away, while the YECers are claiming that the distance is a little over a half mile.
Someone is deeply, tragically wrong here, and it's not the geologists, physicists and astronomers who have converged on the old earth answer.
Comment by keiths — February 13, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi mtravin,
"The question is whether you can do that and still be considered a sane and honest member of the scientific community."
Well, we already how Ross is being considered by PZ and Moran…
What matters isn't how scientists perceive each other. After all, such perceptions can be based on stereotypes and gossip, just like in any other work environment. What matters is whether such scientists can do proper research and analysis of data. In the case of Marcus Ross, it seems the answer is yes.
"It all seems very postmodernist to me, this view that you can juggle different world models around and use whichever one you feel like using at a particular time."
Actually, one of the characteristics of postmodernism was an emphasis on beliefs and motives, to the exclusion of objective reality. In this case, who is it that is preoccupied with the beliefs and motives of Marcus Ross, instead of the research he did out in the objective reality?
"BTW, the very concept of methodological naturalism was developed by evangelicals. Now you guys seem to think it's a conspiracy against you."
No conspiracy theories here. In fact, I just praised Ross for being a good methodological naturalist. PZ and Moran are the guys who think that adhering to it makes you a liar.
Comment by Krauze — February 13, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
The attempt to do both - to hold that science is a rational search for truth, while also declaring by definitional fiat that science proceeds from materialist assumptions - that is a kind of post-modernist relativism, the idea that you can just define your own truth instead of discovering the truth.
Very good. Game, set and match to Deuce.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
This isn't the place to discuss the merits of YEC. If you want to, I'm sure you can find an open thread somewhere.
PS. Keiths, what do you think of methodological naturalism?
Comment by Krauze — February 13, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Bradford: yes, either intelligence or God, the point is that MN discovers natural entities. If, somehow, we turned up evidence for an intelligent creator, then that intelligence would be part of nature and subject to further scientific investigation. Of the examples you give, most are amenable to naturalistic explanation ("origin of life") while others seem to require breaking out into metaphysics ("origin of the cosmos").
MN discovers natural evidence that some use to advance or debunk a case for supernatural entities. The origin of life is amenable to natural explanations for its implausibility.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Deuce:
Well, that's why I can at least respect the consistency of TrueBelievers like PZ and Moran. They make no bones about it - MN *is* PN, and anyone who denies it is… what they daily tell us PN disbelievers are. Those like Eugenie are just deceivers, playing roles for sociopolitical purposes.
mtraven:
Why does anybody need to believe the earth is 10K years old on Sunday, and 4.5B years old on Monday? I think you're assigning way too much significance to overviews that play no real part in the practice of science here. When one is dating fossils, one uses the current best methods and splits the difference between results (which are usually widely erratic). Sometimes, a really good researcher may consider carbon present when analyzing the dating results, but most don't.
For instance, I reported here on a stone snake in a cave in the Kalihari desert not too long ago, dated to 70,000 years ago - because geology could provide evidence of a massive volcanic eruption 71,000 years ago. But the volcanic event wasn't timed for the dating of the artifacts burned to the snake, it was timed to support other anthropo-genetic evidence for a 'bottleneck' said to have occurred around that time which reduced the entire human population to less than 15,000 individuals. All of whom must have lived within 200 miles of this particular stone snake.
Which, given more recent genetic results demonstrating that the bottleneck may never have occurred at all (and Neandertals in Europe don't seem to have been affected at all, so it was always questionable), the entire dating scheme is now highly questionable. Not to mention that if the artifacts were burned within a thousand years of the eruption, the carbon isotopes available to be in the wood used to burn them wouldn't have been the same elemental carbon that could be presumed to be in situ daughter of the same carbon that was present at the formation of the planet.
Assumptions all around, used in what looks increasingly like a mass circle-jerk by researchers trying desperately to explain things in contexts that were never 'real' in the first place. Surely you can't blame people for being a bit suspicious of all this convenience.
MN requires certain assumptions to the technology and conclusions (provisional) thereof. Those change regularly. Not a single bit of it's absolute, so there's no point arguing that it is.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Every point that Krauze makes is excellent. The critics are exposing themselves as extremists once again. Rather than focus on objective reality - the output from Ross - they obsess about Ross's personal beliefs and motivations. In their mind, it doesn't matter that he accomplished; it's all about what he believes.
Comment by MikeGene — February 13, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
keiths:
What 'independent' methods? Rock strata were originally dated by the fossils found in them. And the fossils were dated by the rock strata datings. Then they invented heavy isotope dating (uranium, argon, etc.) and that provided some fairly consistent results upon certain assumptions previously made for carbon. Rock-rocks are notoriously deficient in carbon.
The assumptions are uniformitarian. Do you know what that means? Do you think that the K-T boundary could ever have been established via iridium deposition upon that assumption? Answer: nope. Uniformitarianism went out with plate tectonics, and even that is suffering some serious re-vamps according to research results also released just last week.
Have you ever heard of the "Oklo Reactors?" Now, there's a really odd thing - based on assumptions rejected long ago - that'll spin your head around if you looked deeply enough at the assumptions, and I'm not a geologist. You seem to believe that whatever you read in science news or books is somehow carved in stone like Holy Writ [pun intended], when it's honestly not.
We're bound to and limited by our technology. We are always working to improve it, so nobody should assume we know everything there is to know - about anything - based solely on what is hypothesized today from our limitations. It's just 'best-guess'. That's fine and fit to our progressive endeavors. Progressive endeavors do not pretend to Absolute Truth.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Methodological Naturalism is bunk from backside to breakfast time. There is no definition of 'natural' that is neither circular, or question-begging.
Comment by BenK — February 13, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I can think of one way. If Ross were to presuppose the truthfullness of the Genesis account ( as he sees it) that makes his YECism based on pure supposition not current scientific evidence.
As a scientist he adopts the presupposition of MN….he pretends naturalism is true and presents his thesis in this manner.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — February 13, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
BenK:
Oh, the methodology has proven to be the most objectively useful thing humans ever devised. Of course, the endeavor was always mostly about ever more effective methods of mass murder, so 'useful' is a bit debatable. Even today, when they're busy inventing designer plagues and more efficient nukes. To give to politicians, as if we didn't know better than THAT!
It just doesn't even begin to represent Absolute Truth.Most who actually understand science know this. It's the wannabes and groupies who get so easily confused.
It's okay if we're limited by our technology and our ability to create technologies. Our struggle is to overcome those limitations, and so far we've been pretty good at it. Over the long term, anyway.
I've got a couple of carbon crystals I saved from the way, way early days of applicable, creative technology from the original space program. They were used in what was then known as a laser photospectrometer for identifying elemental isotopes. Quite a large and nifty machine (the size of a mainframe of the time, which my G-4 beats ten ways to sideways right now even though it's obsolete), and these crystals (rated 1.0 and 0.02 angstrom) were grown specifically for the technology in extremely difficult electromagnetic circumstances, and were at the time more precious than diamonds. Really.
Now they're just interesting pieces of plastic, not worth a thing to anyone but me. Heck, they don't even have to use lithium crystals anymore to measure alpha-beta dose! But because I went to all the trouble to study crystallography in college, and spent the time to put it to productive use, I keep those crystals around to remind me that it's all a limitation more than a deep big-T Truth. We inevitably move on.
So long as one can accept that, there isn't a problem with PN versus MN. It's only when one jumps feet-first into PN as Absolute big-T Truth that problems arise. You'll have this situation every time major 'paradigm' changes occur in science. Now is such a time. Everything we think we know may be wrong [accepted], but we don't know what's coming next [yet].
It won't be absolute either.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
me: but that is different than believing the earth is 10000 years old on Sunday and 4.5 billion years old on Monday.
doug: Who is this to? I'm Catholic and I have never come across an objection in my school or in my theological discussions with clergy that the universe is what Bishop Ussher believed it to be.
me again: aren't we talking about Marcus Ross? The recently-granted PhD in geosciences who somehow simultaneously believes in YEC (10000 year old earth) and writes his dissertation on species that lived 65 million years ago?
I find it truly incredible that anybody can defend this guy with a straight face.
Krauze: Actually, one of the characteristics of postmodernism was an emphasis on beliefs and motives, to the exclusion of objective reality. In this case, who is it that is preoccupied with the beliefs and motives of Marcus Ross, instead of the research he did out in the objective reality?
me: wow, that's twisted. Ross is the one who maintains two completely incompatible beliefs about the physical world, and yet it his his critics who are ignoring objective reality. My hat is off to you, sir.
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
wow, that's twisted. Ross is the one who maintains two completely incompatible beliefs about the physical world, and yet it his his critics who are ignoring objective reality. My hat is off to you, sir.
mtraven, you're not getting it. Your view of Ross, as well as the views of Moran and others, is irrelevant. Scientifically, the only thing that matters, as Krauze has pointed out, is the quality of his research. Nothing else.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
mtraven,
Are you a neo-McCarthyist?
Comment by MikeGene — February 13, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Hi Joy,
That isn't actually true. All of the earliest scientists and many of the most influential ones worked from a premise of theistic rationalism not methodological naturalism. They thought the universe was ordered and should be understandable because of its creation by an ordered and rational God. That is not "methodological naturalism" at all, but something quite different.
Besides, all of this debacle shows what a sham the whole methodological naturalism approach is anyway, and how it is just a certian clique of atheists who are telling lies to christians in an effort to avoid getting them off side.
The real liars hear are not Marcus Ross, but all of those like Eugenie Scott who preached the "methodological naturalism" nonsense and then as soon as it doesn't serve its purpose anymore, drops it like a hot coal. At least she if finally showing her true stripes as the forked tongued witch that she is.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 13, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
No, I'm not a neo-McCarthyite, whatever that is.
McCarthy, you may recall, made false accusations of disloyalty. Ross has admitted that he a split loyalty between two radically incompatible worldviews.
And it's arguably true that it is easier to be simultaneously a patriotic American and a communist than simultaneously a young-earther and an old-earther. The former pair at least is not contradictory by definition.
Also, I'm not particularly interested in persecuting Dr. Ross for his views, although I'd be pretty dubious about hiring him to teach science. I'm just fascinated that someone can split themselves so thoroughly and I'm wondering how it works.
Also, for what it's worth, I'm not radically anti-religious or anything. Check out my scienceblogs comments if you don't believe me. But I don't see how religions that make testable but false predications about the natural world can survive contact with science, especially within a single brain!
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
mtraven:
It's just factors of ten. So long as one understands the methodology and the technology and the consensus interpretation of conclusions therefrom, what's the problem?
Why are you so worried about what Ross believes in his heart-of-hearts? Does it threaten you in any way? Does it make what you believe less true? I am always intrigued by this very strange paranoia of EAs. The fear quotient is way out of line, and there's no apparent reason for it.
Can YOU explain it to me?
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
" Why are you so worried about what Ross believes in his heart-of-hearts? Does it threaten you in any way? Does it make what you believe less true? I am always intrigued by this very strange paranoia of EAs. The fear quotient is way out of line, and there's no apparent reason for it. " =Joy
I'll tell you why it worries me. It's called intellectual integrity. When people read your scientific reports, they do so under the implicit assumption that you not only have attempted to be methodically correct but also that you stand behind your claims. If you privately believe the truth to be otherwise, and yet that belief isn't evident in your manuscript, then you are knowingly misleading your readers. You're concealing something directly relevant to the work. Presumably there is some additional evidence or reasoning that makes you privately disavow what you're writing, and you are failing to reveal that evidence/logic to the community. Sorry, but all the talk about "different paradigms" sounds like bunk to me. It would be like me trying to tell my wife I wasn't cheating but simply operating under a different relationship paradigm.
Comment by great_ape — February 13, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Joy: "just factors of ten"!?!? Try 10^5, at least. So if I owe you $100000, and instead give you $1, that's OK with you, since it's just factors of ten?
"Why are you so worried about what Ross believes in his heart-of-hearts? Does it threaten you in any way? Does it make what you believe less true? I am always intrigued by this very strange paranoia of EAs. The fear quotient is way out of line, and there's no apparent reason for it."
Scientists have a passion for the truth, and sometimes a passionate antipathy towards those who distort, shade, or hide the truth. An individual like Ross doesn't pose much of a threat to the overall enterprise of science, but blatant disregard for the truth does pose a threat, especially when it is politically well-armed.
Comment by mtraven — February 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:37 am
It is strange that so many people seem unaware of the philosophy of science position known as anti-realism, which is a perfectly orthodox position, and completely compatible with Dr Ross' views in this case.
Worse yet, many of those who are screaming about this are themselves scientific anti-realists because they rule divine intervention out of bounds by default.
So why are they getting so upset ?
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 12:37 am
February 14th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Oh, please, may I do the cross examination when they put this guy up as a witness for intelligent design?
Comment by edarrell — February 14, 2007 @ 1:22 am
February 14th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Steven D. Schafersman at Miami? Hell of a commute from the Permian Basin!
Comment by edarrell — February 14, 2007 @ 1:24 am
February 14th, 2007 at 2:23 am
great_ape:
Fear not, great ape. Your opinion of other people's "intellectual integrity" means far less to them - and to society at large - than you'd love to believe it does. So swing away.
mtraven:
I love little-T truth as well. I know you don't believe that, but your beliefs are as dismissible in this context as anyone else's. Isn't it nifty how that works? Objectivity trumps. It has always been thus. For a reason.
I am glad, however, that you've come armed. It will make things much more justifiable in the end, won't it?
Comment by Joy — February 14, 2007 @ 2:23 am
February 14th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Is this addressed to me ? I'm more than happy to defend the postion, ask your question here or send me an email thesciphishiw@gmail.com
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 2:55 am
February 14th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Great_ape writes:
"If you privately believe the truth to be otherwise, and yet that belief isn't evident in your manuscript, then you are knowingly misleading your readers."
What is ironic is that had Ross argued for his YEC beliefs, PZ would now be railing against this "snake-oil salesman lying to the public". As for "failing to reveal that evidence/logic to the community", we all know what happens to scientists that decide to share the "evidence/logic" that in their opinion supports design.
Comment by Krauze — February 14, 2007 @ 3:30 am
February 14th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Hi mtraven,
I disagree. First, a patriotic American is one who highly values freedom and a communist does not. Second, one could be an old-earther in a methodological/scientific sense and a young-earther in a philosophical/metaphysical sense.
It happens all the time. Consider the leading "pro-science" advocate, Richard Dawkins. He defends science by abandoning the principles of science. He demands evidence, and then accuses you (a Catholic) of being a child abuser without having any evidence. He preaches about the importance of reason, and then invokes emotion when trying to change opinion.
The split you are interested in has been argued and defended by critics for years "“ the split between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Concerning Ross, he might adopt a position similar to Paul Nelson or Kurt Wise, who concede the scientific evidence does not favor their beliefs, but instead, rely on their metaphysical perspective. They can maintain this split because science is not about providing Absolute Truth and thus hold out that in the future, some discoveries will be made that will cause science to eventually swing around to see things their way.
Yet all of this is irrelevant, as Ross has just shown you that the split does not prohibit him from understanding and doing good science. A man should be judged by his accomplishments and not his personal beliefs.
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 3:39 am
February 14th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Hi great ape,
I'll tell you why this doesn't worry me. I expect Ross to stand behind his methods and his results, because these are the things I have to trust. When it comes to his arguments, I expect his arguments to be supported by his data and previous work. But I don't need to trust him on this, as I can determine that for myself. I don't need him to personally believe his own arguments, because if I cite him, I am citing his data, not "Dr. Ross" and his authoritative opinion. In the scientific literature, rarely do you find scientists quoting each other. This is because in science, it is the methods/results that are the authorities, not the person. This is the type of clear-thinking that Ross's advisors clearly understood.
So you think methodological naturalism is inherently misleading?
Why is Ross's personal opinions/metaphysics directly relevant to his methods, data, and arguments? Didn't he just demonstrate the opposite with his PhD?
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 3:54 am
February 14th, 2007 at 7:26 am
mtraven: An individual like Ross doesn't pose much of a threat to the overall enterprise of science,
He doesn't pose any. He does his job and keeps his religious convictions out of it. I thought that's what you were supposed to do.
but blatant disregard for the truth does pose a threat, especially when it is politically well-armed.
Then beware of established institutions for that is where the money and power are.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 7:26 am
February 14th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Is this addressed to me ? I'm more than happy to defend the postion, ask your question here or send me an email thesciphishiw@gmail.com
I think he meant Ross. Have you read about the good old days of the 50s when McCarthyites would start with the question: Were you not a member of the Communist Party? The updated version of the new interrogators could be: Are you a member of a religious group and do some within that group not advocate a young earth concept. Answer the question aspiring PhD.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 7:32 am
February 14th, 2007 at 7:45 am
MG: I disagree. First, a patriotic American is one who highly values freedom and a communist does not. Second, one could be an old-earther in a methodological/scientific sense and a young-earther in a philosophical/metaphysical sense.
Good response Mike. I would add that patriotism and communism were in conflict; at least in theory. Nationalism was anethema to Marx and America anethema to the rulers of the Soviet block. More importantly though, in politics there is no equivalent of scientific objectivity and the concept that you lay your personal feelings aside as there is in the field of scientific research. As with so many of the objections, related to Ross, this won't fly either.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 7:45 am
February 14th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Mike Gene wrote:
Then I assume you denounce Ross's employer, Liberty University, for requiring him (and all faculty members) to sign a statement of faith as a condition of employment.
Should we look forward to an indignant post from you on the discriminatory employment practices at Liberty?
Comment by keiths — February 14, 2007 @ 9:46 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Great ape says:
This is not directed specificly to you Great Ape but to any in the PN camp who are upset over this issue:
How exactly does a hard-line Natrualist believe in intellectual integrity and therefore freedom of choice while knowing what Natrualism entails about these concepts? I'm sorry but the irony is almost too much to bear!
Comment by Mertens — February 14, 2007 @ 11:29 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Mike Gene et al.,
No one has presented any evidence that Marcus Ross takes the Paul Nelson/Kurt Wise view, i.e., "I acknowledge the physical evidence is totally against me, but I believe in a young-earth anyway because the Bible tells me so." If he did, then you might have a point that this lines up with methodological naturalism (as long as the young-earth view is then considered a "personal religious belief", but I don't think even Paul Nelson/Kurt Wise would accept this — Paul Nelson, at least, whines about methodological naturalism regularly).
However, if Ross teaches his students at Liberty University that the young-earth view is scientifically supported, then we know he doesn't take the omphalos view, and then the concerns about Ross spreading misinformation people are perfectly legitimate.
All in all, I'm glad Marcus Ross is on your side. The more YECs in the ID movement, the better, because ID will never pass the smell test with the scientific community as long as it fails to exclude the wackos.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am
February 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Mikegene says:
I don't think you understand the point of the communist analogy. The point is, while it may be very difficult to reconcile patriotism and communism, it is EASIER than reconciling belief in two different ages for the earth — the former involves a good deal of intellectual contortion, but the latter is logically impossible.
Your second point seems to be getting somewhere, although I'm not sure where. What does it mean to be "a young-earther in a philosophical/metaphysical sense" If it means that he doesn't literally believe the earth to be 10000 years old, then there's no problem. But the NYT article says:
So, which is it? Is he a YEC-literalist, or something else?
Comment by mtraven — February 14, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hello Nick,
That's an odd complaint given that your own boss advocates for discrimination without offering up any evidence that people like Ross require gobs of "remedial instruction."
From the NYT article:
Nick:
Again, from the NYT article:
BTW, why is it that the people who are concerned about Ross spreading misinformation at a private, religious university don't seem to be bothered when Dawkins and Harris use the mainstream media to spread misinformation to the public?
And you have bigots like Dawkins, Myers, and Harris on your side.
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hi mtraven,
Yes, but you have yet to demonstrate this is the case. One could indeed argue that it is logically impossible to be an American patriot and a communist.
It's possible that Ross comes from a religious tradition that immerses him in "˜revelation.' where the "˜revealed' truth is something that man's fallen mind can never hope to attain. Thus, he might view the scientific interpretation as the best our senses and minds can come up with, but perceive the scientific interpretation against the backdrop of his metaphysical views. I explained this in the remainder of my response to you.
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Mike, your quotes from the NY Times article don't connect to your claims about Ross. If he had used the words "methodological naturalism" you might have a case. As it stands right now, your claim is undocumented.
(I suspect Ross thinks methodological naturalism is a bunch of hooey, thus my skepticism that it can be used in his defense.)
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Hi Nick,
I don't see why it can't be used in his defense, it is after all the principle that groups such as your own do advocate as supposedly legitimate.
Even if he thinks it is bunk, and I think it is bunk as well BTW, if you are insisting on it then you can't turn around and abandon it when it suits you.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
sciphishow,
The claim was that Marcus Ross was just employing methodological naturalism in his PhD and that therefore scientists should be happy with it. The premise in that argument could be true.
But it might also be that Ross thinks, like the old-style scientific creationists he is now working with, that the physical evidence actually supports the Biblical view and this truth is being suppressed by an atheist conspiracy. This would be completely wacky and a strong indication of poor scientific judgment.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
MikeGene says:
That is complete mumbo-jumbo to me, I'm afraid.
If his religious views stayed in the realm of metaphysics, then there wouldn't be a problem. But his religious views apparently contain testable but false, propositions about the natural, physical world, propositions which contradict his scientific writings. You can dance around that all you like, but it's evidence of either dishonesty or insanity. Or, in Richard Dawkins terms, it's an example of "Virtuoso Believing", for which he deserves some kind of prize (some of the comments here might also enter the running).
Comment by mtraven — February 14, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
You can dance around that all you like, but it's evidence of either dishonesty or insanity. Or, in Richard Dawkins terms, it's an example of "Virtuoso Believing", for which he deserves some kind of prize (some of the comments here might also enter the running).
How is it dishonest to give requisite answers and at the same time not think those answers correct?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Are you kidding? How is not dishonest?
The only circumstances where giving a "requisite answer" would not be dishonest was if it was somehow coerced, as in the case of Galileo recanting before the Inquisition. But nobody forced Ross to pursue a career as a paleontologist!
The comments here are so absurd I'm beginning to suspect that the whole thing is a practical joke.
Comment by mtraven — February 14, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Cute… would you force him not to pursue a career as a paleontologist?
Exactly how I was feeling about the standard you are placing on Ross.
And the fact that a person believes one thing but practices MN while in the lab boggles your mind so much is just as absurd.
Comment by Doug — February 14, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Wrong, when I was in psych programs during college I had to take tests on behavioral psych and certain aspects of it. Despite how much I disagreed with it, I still had to answer accordingly.
Again, you're unreasonable with the standard you are holding Ross to.
Comment by Doug — February 14, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
How is it dishonest to give requisite answers and at the same time not think those answers correct?
Are you kidding? How is not dishonest?
I can give you detailed accounts of standard thinking about life's origins including differing theories, who authored what, etc. I can tell you about minimal genome research, methodologies utilized and more. I don't believe in any of the attached theories yet I would probably do well on a test of the subject matter. I once had a prof who had weird ideas about Lenin and Russian history. When required to write analytical essays I kept his interpretations in mind. In all academic areas interpretations are attached to facts. Helmholtz had his ether interpretations; not to be confused with factual data. Instructors are not without their subjective views and that includes instructors in the sciences. As long as one has mastery of the subject matter he is entitled to his own private view of things. Indeed, unorthodoxy can and has given way to great scientific advances.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Comment by Doug — February 14, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
There is a third possibility you are not considering. He could be of the opinion that MN is an impediment to the progress of science because it unilaterally rules out things that should otherwise be live possibilites, without blaming in on some atheist conspiracy.
And frankly given the utter wackiness that is tolerated in academia, even if this was the case, I don't really see the problem.
Are you really willing to demand ideological purity in who can teach people ? Because there are humanities departments that would love to do this to the science departments, and this sort of suggestion by you, just encourages that sort of drive. Academic freedom is supposedly important.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Fortunately I am not in the position of being able to force anyone to do or not do anything.
I would just like to understand how someone can go through the trouble of obtaining a doctorate in paleontology if he holds beliefs that are in complete contradiction to those of the field. Why would anyone bother? Surely he'd be better employed doing something he actually believed in.
Comment by mtraven — February 14, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Hi Mtraven,
"Ross is the one who maintains two completely incompatible beliefs about the physical world, and yet it his his critics who are ignoring objective reality."
If critics want to deal with objective reality, they need to look at Ross' dissertation and show that it is so bad that he didn't deserve his degree. Anything else is just hand-waving.
Comment by Krauze — February 14, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Hi Mikegene,
"I expect Ross to stand behind his methods and his results, because these are the things I have to trust. When it comes to his arguments, I expect his arguments to be supported by his data and previous work. "
I agree with you to the extent that, for most practicing scientists, the accuracy of the data is the sole concern, and they can turn a blind eye to all else. That is why I can understand how his colleagues & profs could isolate his personal beliefs and find no practical conflict. In terms of the morality of the scientific culture, however–and I would argue that sustainable progress in science is contingent on an adequate moral fabric that has respect for truth and honesty–his actions are wanting. He believes one thing to be the truth and yet reports another result to his peers. It's as simple as that. That's dishonesty, whichever way you slice it, and it should not be encouraged in science because it's not healthy.
It's all fine and good to have the data are correct, but I can tell you that if I got my interpretations consistently wrong, my career would end rapidly. Clearly the community heavily values the interpretation of the researcher and judges them (for hiring, etc) on their capacity to make such interpretations.. Here, Ross is openly acknowledging that he believes his published interpretation of the data is ultimately incorrect. There's something very wrong there. Either he has *good* reasons to believe it's incorrect, and he is being deceptive for not revealing the truth or b) he has *bad* reasons for doing so and his scientific judgment is lacking. Neither of these scenarios are favorable.
I agree with Nick above–If I understand him correctly–*if* Ross was of the view that he *must* be a YEC believer b/c of divine authority, then I can respect that and understand why he doesn't inject such discussion into the paper. If, on the other hand, he