I mean … come on
by machtThere is an episode of South Park where Jimmy and Timmy, the two physically challenged kids in South park, accidentally join a gang. They mistakenly thought that the Crips were a gang for crippled kids. Upset that the Crips have a rivalry with the Bloods, Jimmy organizes a lock-in at a local rec center for the Crips and the Bloods, since lock-ins are always so fun. When Jimmy realizes that things might get ugly at the lock-in, he responds with "Why don't we at least give it a chance? I mean … Come on!"
"I mean … come on" is about the only response I have to this op-ed. It's written by John Hauptman, a physics professor at Iowa State University, in response to the denial of tenure of Guillermo Gonzalez. I haven't said anything about Gonzalez yet because I had no idea of the reasons he was denied tenure and without knowing that, there isn't much to say. I thought it was going to come down to an issue of economics, not ID, but it appears I was at least partially wrong.
For Hauptman, the issue came down to the question "What is science?" Gonzalez, Hauptman says, is "very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher." Furthermore, Hauptman says he has always been fascinated by the ideas Gonzalez is researching,
"always been fascinated by his ideas, for example, that the first few millimeters of moon dust contain pieces of ancient Earth, the circling moon acting as a vacuum cleaner scooping up impact debris, or that numerous but precise and delicate conditions allow life on our Earth. Where else is life allowed? These are great questions."
So Hauptman admits that he is fascinated by Gonzalez's research, that he's asking great questions, and that he is "highly productive scientifically." (my emphasis)
What's the problem then? It is that he has "expressed his belief" in ID. I really don't know how to respond to that. I mean … come on. Give me something specific, man. Point me to some faulty arguments. Point me to incompetence. Give me anything. I mean … come on. "ID isn't science" is about as much of a non-answer as "God did it." It's a fancy slogan that just gets in the way of the real issues. Ironically, in this case, it appears to be a "science stopper" if we are to take Hauptman at his word when he said Gonzalez is "highly productive scientifically."
I mean … come on.
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Yes. That and some metaphysical implications, associated with ID, that make some uncomfortable. Academic freedom is ideally intended to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Denying Gonzalez tenure is meant to address a broader issue than Gonzalez's career. It's about setting parameters as to what is permissible thought. The gauntlet thrown down does Orwellians proud.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Academia has now officially jumped the shark.
This concept is what is going to replace it.
Comment by mcromer — June 2, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Wow. Hauptman clearly failed to vet this with the Matzke crowd, as he just seriously undercut the "official" explanation:
See? It wasn't about grants. His question means it was all about ID. Do you think Hauptman asked this question privately to himself? Or might it have been discussed by the entire committee?
Hauptman writes:
Sure it does. The following description illustrates that Gonzalez was obviously qualified for tenure:
Creative. Intelligent. Knowledgeable. Highly productive scientifically. Excellent teacher. The only thing left for Gonzalez to do is to publicly recant his ID views. That Gonzalez was able to demonstrate himself as creative, intelligent, knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher shows us that Hauptman's question and concern is superfluous.
But don't overlook another candid admission from Hauptman:
Yes, that was obvious.
Like I said before, I think the critics have ceded the moral high ground. They are no longer about defending science education in public schools. They are now about rationalizing the petition and the denial of tenure to someone who was creative, intelligent. knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher.
Also don't forget that the community of critics in the blogosphere have cheered and defended the denial of tenure.
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
"Gonzalez, Hauptman says, is "very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher."
Sorry, but it seems to me that those are perfectly good reasons to toss Gonzalez outta college. Creative, intelligent. knowledgeable and productive…
Might as well be penis-envy! LOL
Gonzalez got what you don't got, Hauptmann.
Oh well, sorry 4ya Gonzalez, but science goes on and on and on and leaves behind all fools—Dr, Hauptmann–See ya later!
Comment by Rock — June 2, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Hi Macht and others,
Hauptmann wrote"¦
"An assistant professor at a university has every right to pursue whatever investigations he or she so chooses to investigate. There must be no bounds, no restrictions and no penalties for research of any kind."
In direct reference to Gonzalez's research.
Apparently, Hauptmann also feels
""¦a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet [its] scientific standards."
You asked…
The problem might be that you think Gonzalez had a RIGHT to tenure and was somehow restricted or penalized for his unorthodox research.
You and I may feel ISU has a rather myopic view of scientific standards, but if Hauptman is being honest I think he is entitled to his opinion and to vote his conscience based on that opinion.
I am willing to give Hauptman the benefit of the doubt he honestly expressed his opinion in the sited editorial. Are you?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 2, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I believe Hauptman was honest. Much more so than the bloggers who have been trying to spin a lack of research funding meme. But his two statements are somewhat at odds. One has every right to investigate without restriction etc. But if you do (and the research has an ID theme to it) you will not be tenured. For an academic that is a heavy sword over one's head and puts one in a position of having to stay underground until tenure is granted or seeking work elsewhere- not attractive options.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Excuse me but aren't you the one who says "ID is not science"
Hauptmann concluded with…
"It is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."
You and I may think it strange that ISU isn't interested in exploring things that might meet the definition of science in the future, but isn't that their choice to make?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 2, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
So, let me see if I understand this. It is reprehensible to publicly define science in a way that excludes Gonzalez and his ideas, even if one agrees with that view of science and even though such a public declaration has no force of coercion and still allows everyone the freedom to make their own choices.
But it is not reprehensible for a tenure evaluation committee to privately ask
and then vote to exclude Gonzalez from tenure on the basis that some of his ideas do not conform to the same definition of science voiced in the public letter.
Which of these two actions respects academic freedom? Which does not?
Now, once again, which one was reprehensible?
Comment by eric — June 2, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Hi TP,
Yep. However, if I was in Hauptmann's shoes, I would have found this disagreement to be insufficient cause for effectively firing Gonzalez. What matters is that Gonzalez demonstrated himself as creative, intelligent, knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher. Clearly, his views about ID and science did not negatively impact his ability to be a good scientist and teacher, demonstrating the superfluous nature of the disagreement. In fact, even though I agree ID is not science, maybe Gonzalez was just the guy to turn it into science. Tell me -how is ID ever supposed to become science if scientists who are intelligent, highly scientifically productive, an excellent teachers, get kicked out of academia?
Sure, it is their choice to make. They denied tenure to someone who was creative, intelligent, knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher because that person didn't pass a superfluous litmus test. That choice is now public record (along with the cheering from all the ID critics) and simply helps us better define the ID critics and how they have ceded their moral high ground. Prior to Dover, I stood on principle and opposed the teaching of ID in the public schools. Post-Dover, I stand on principle and support academic freedom.
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Never forget this quote from the CHE:
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Mike & Co.,
Sadly that's the way the cookie crumbles. Id'cy baloney isn't scientific. Bitter, but you guys should get used to it. Whichever way you put it, call ISU and its profs all sorts of things, ID isn't scientific, it is an eyewash. ISU has rightly concluded that it doesn't want to water down its standards in the future like Lehigh has by employing a crank like Behe. It looks like Gonzalez made the choice a while ago, and decided to offer himself up for the cause of ID no doubt being inspired by such illustrious professors as Dembski. This game has gone for too long, and every iteration gets shorter and shorter. Creationism, Creation Science, ID, Teach the Conroversy, PP. The science test is the first test - not a superfluous litmus test. You fail that, you fail everyone after that. Gonzalez from certain a certain communication I am privileged to jumped the shark a while ago. He is no doubt an intelligent and scientifically capable person, which is why he earned a PhD in the first place. This person I know who wishes to remain unnamed, says that Gonzalez is quite a mediocre researcher, rusty on his art and craft. This person tells me that when he was taking a graduate class those days, he took up a silly argument with a student on ID and was badly refuted. This was still before the days he started working with Dembski, so he didn't know how to slink out of an argument.
I am very happy that ISU has acted firmly and lived up to the high standards it is justifiably known for. Dr. Geoffroy's letter is very well written and settles all doubts. Mike Gene your scientific demeanor is simply a veneer. Or else you wouldn't say The only thing left for Gonzalez to do is to publicly recant his ID views. Only beliefs derived from dogma are recanted. In science there are no beliefs, evidence is all that matters. Theories rise and fall by the evidence regardless of what you believe in. When a theory fails it is abandoned - not recanted. You can't turn something into science. You can only do something scientifically; you see it is the process. So ID'cy to start with isn't about science. The very reason people turn to ID and other types of hogwash is because they have a problem with science.
Comment by agam — June 3, 2007 @ 12:36 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Agam,
Why are we supposed to believe you? Do you have evidence to back up these assertions? Could you be lying?
Comment by MikeGene — June 3, 2007 @ 12:51 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 am
No, I don't think that.
I have no doubt he is being honest. lol
Comment by macht — June 3, 2007 @ 1:34 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 am
Agam and others,
I have no problem with ISU denying Gonzalez tenure. I just think their reasons are stupid.
Comment by macht — June 3, 2007 @ 1:38 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:19 am
This is called hearsay. It is sheer rubbish. It is not admitted as evidence in most quasi-judicial proceedings.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2007 @ 6:19 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 am
Gonzalez research grant money at Iowa State: $22,661
His department peers by tenure average: $1.3 million
I mean, c'mon!
Comment by Aagcobb — June 3, 2007 @ 9:36 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
Where did you get these stats? They conflict with this account.
More to the point though it appears to be a red herring. If he was dismissed for the reasons given by Hauptman then the grant focus looks like pure spin.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2007 @ 9:56 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Mike and Bradford,
I am not on the tenure review committee or offering them any evidence. It's just that I would be very surprised if a washed out has been like GG were granted tenure anywhere leave alone ISU. Of course diploma mills and kooky "universities" excepted. Given that you guys are obsessed with worthless "ID principles" such as specification, complexity etc., I am simply trying to jolt you out of anotherr one of your fantasies - that GG is still a competent astronomer. You are simply assuming that GG is qualified for tenure unlike the tenure review committee that set out to determine the question in the first place. Tenure has been denied for much less. Lawrence Krauss for simply writing a book (among a zillion other things he achieved), Sean Carroll, at Chicago and now Rob Knop at Vandy. GG's best work was done by the time he came to ISU.
Go back to the basics and ask yourselves some hard questions. "What do we really mean when we claim something is specified/designed/etc.?"
Comment by agam — June 3, 2007 @ 11:39 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
Hi agam,
You wrote…
Not only could I probably guess the responses you are going to get, I could probably write half of them. However, let me slip this in first.
I think Dr. Dembski's use of complicated formula's and really big numbers to argue specified complexity to be nothing less than smoke and mirrors to hide his God agenda. He is arguing that chance hypotheses like evolutionary theory are inadequate.
Ironically, I think that Penrose's logic has the potential of demonstrating there is no such thing as randomness in nature. There are no chance hypotheses. Everything is interconnected at the quantum level.
I chuckle every time I think of the possibility that Dr. Dembski might get credit for a concept he would find appalling (of course he will continue to believe "God did it" anyway).
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 11:58 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Agam,
Your clichés and stereotypes do not challenge me; they bore me. Dime-a-dozen. Let's instead turn to something else:
Let's consult someone who was on the tenure review committee: "He is very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher. Students in my Newspaper Physics class like to interview him."
Obviously Agam, you are a malicious troll who, for some reason, hates Gonzalez. I asked you three questions - Why are we supposed to believe you? Do you have evidence to back up these assertions? Could you be lying? You chose to ignore them so that you could continue your character assassination.
This ID critic's behavior is highly unethical. I'm not going to ban him, because I think it helpful for others to see to just what unethical lengths some ID critics are willing to go to oppose anything related to ID.
Comment by MikeGene — June 3, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hauptman's mention of this: 0
Like I said, I expected to the reasons to be economic but this doesn't seem to be the case for Hauptman. His vote had to do with "what is science?" Not, "how much money did this guy bring in?" like you seem to be suggesting.
Comment by macht — June 3, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
So much for the great "freedom of thought" of academia.
Here's a man whose words I believe are relevant to this discussion:
Too bad that viewpoint is now dying out in universities across America.
Comment by mcromer — June 3, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Pass the bong. . .
Comment by mcromer — June 3, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
[monotone robot voice]I am a scientist. I have no beliefs. Please insert evidence.[/monotone robot voice]
Comment by macht — June 3, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Average values don't help. Imagine that the astronomy department had only two tenured professors. One had a 2 million grant and the other had none. The average value would be 1 million. It would be more impressive if the account read: Gonzalez research grant money at Iowa State: $22,661. His department peers by tenure had a minimum of $1.3 million.
But this is all irrelevant, as you are evading the two main points.
1. Hauptman admits that, at least for him, the decision was not about funding but about a definition of science in the context of considering ID. And as the record now shows, the consensus among the ID critics is that they cheer and applaud this approach.
2. Hauptman agrees that the petition was indeed targeting Gonzalez and was reprehensible. Since we at TT noticed this two years ago (and predicted this would cause trouble for his tenure), we have been vindicated (remember at that time, ID critics erected smokescreens to defend the petition and attack us).
Aagcobb, are you now willing to acknowledge that the petition did indeed target Gonzalez?
Comment by MikeGene — June 3, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
In particular, scientists have no beliefs about "what is science." Or if they do, they are not scientific beliefs. Which, I suppose, must make the belief about "what is science" a religious belief.
So now we have GG denied tenure not for his religious beliefs, but rather because of the religious beliefs of those reviewing his application.
I mean "¦ come on.
Comment by Mung — June 3, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Mike,
I am not trading in any cliche or stereotype here, simply suggesting that you ask yourself what you mean by your favourite terms, design/specificity etc.
Hauptmann concluded that GG's smarts aren't sufficient if he doesn't follow the scientific method. Hauptmann earned tenure and the privilege of working on the tenure review committee. So that is the way it happens. Now if Behe were to sit on a tenure review committee… But wait. He's got no graduate students now right? Wonder about Scott Minnich. How does he make tenure decisions? That would be an interesting thing to follow. There are quite a few creationist professors with grad students. I do know a person who has worked closely with a collaborator of Macosko Sr. at U.Mn. and am told that the professor draws a line between his advocacy of creationism and his professional work. Even Fritz Shaeffer (6 time Nobel nominee) seems to do that. The problem with GG is that even that hazy line was missing and the guy was lecturing on the connection between observing the solar eclipse and ID! Privileged by whom? For whom? For what? Data? None!
Now on this petition thing. From all accounts it seems that the petition did not target GG. The petition was intelligently designed for sure. But determining its purpose and its target, if any, is an issue for philosophy and not science! OTOH a university is a place for the free exchange of ideas. So what does it matter if professors move a motion criticisng an unscientific idea like ID? Are you saying professors shouldn't express their opinions?
What's unethical? I am not offering my opinion as evidence. It's only after I heard that the tenure committee long-listed GG that I talked to my friend. I am a humble layperson, and what do I have to do with tenure decisions. But as a well-wisher of a ISU I am certainly concerned with the the state of ISU.
A discussion of beliefs and action is beyond the scope of this blog. All I can tell you is that I come from a non-Western intellectual tradition that is not based on beliefs. And no I am no great fan of the "Enlightenment" either. While I think it was a god thing, it hasn't strayed very far from the earlier belief based system of thought. It simply secularised them. Don't worry my friends, regardless of what scientists believe, the uber designer if he exists will show up. Until he does that let's get on with our lives.
Mike, I think TT although way off the scientific map, is sober unlike e'news.org and restrained unlike Ud.com. Your supercilious stance towards scientists and their work is makes for funny reading. I wonder what's happening to your composure that you are threatening to ban me!
Comment by agam — June 3, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Hi agam,
I don't see where you got the idea that MikeGene or anyone on TT is threatening to ban you.
I noticed you appear to be more interested in arguing the politics instead of the science.
You are fighting a losing game when you argue politics. And, btw, you are losing this exchange, IMO.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 3, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Mike did not threaten to ban you in fact he basically said he was not. However he did say you were unethical.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 3, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Mung,
"Scientific belief" is an oxymoron.
What anyone believes to be science, is irrelevant. It is simply a means that produces theories. So you don't want to follow the means that scientists do, try to produce theories that withstand critical review, you do it stands, you don't it falls. Simple. Talking about "believing in a method" is to make a category error.
Comment by agam — June 3, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Agam,
Sure you are. Here's what you said: "Given that you guys are obsessed with worthless "ID principles" such as specification, complexity etc"¦." At this point, it became quite clear that while you are addressing me, you are doing so from a position of ignorance while leaning on the crutch of stereotype.
Yet Hauptman concedes that Gonzalez is "highly productive scientifically." Why did you choose to erase that part?
More information from your imaginary friends?
Your assertion has just been falsified by Hauptman: "I believe that the letter signed by 120 ISU faculty members criticizing intelligent design as not scientific was reprehensible, not because I do not agree, but because it was obviously aimed at Gonzalez." Obviously, it's not "from all accounts."
You were not offering an opinion; you were floating gossip. I asked if you could be lying and twice you failed to reassure us that you are not. And even if you are not lying, we have no way of verifying the assertions and trustworthiness of your mysterious friend. The ethical thing to do here is to retract your claims and apologize to TT readers and Gonzalez.
Yet your clearly embrace false beliefs about me and expect others to believe your stories about Gonzalez without offering any evidence.
Not only do you again misrepresent me, you do so as part of a personal attack. How fitting.
Actually, I told you I would not ban you. It's informative for others to see how a Gonzalez-hater so easily slips into misrepresentation, personal attacks, and the spreading of malicious gossip.
Comment by MikeGene — June 3, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
My good ambulance-chaser, can you provide us with the median?
Comment by obrienr — June 3, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Guys,
First, I got the amounts of research grants here; they got the numbers from the Des Moines Register. The DI neglects to mention that the $64,000 grant came while Gonzalez was at the University of Washington, and the DI grant came after the review of his tenure file was complete at the departmental level. MikeGene, you think that Hauptmann's reason for voting is very significant; I don't know why, because it was just one vote in a tenure decision process that went through several levels and on which Gonzalez still has an appeal option.
A couple of you make the point that the $1.3 million average could be misleading concerning the median. However, that means you are no longer arguing that Gonzalez was among the best in his department, you are now only arguing, at best, that he meets the lowest common denominator for some people who got tenure. When you are borderline for tenure, and you are better known for your cranky hobby than your science, I can't blame Iowa State for deciding they didn't want to be stuck with this guy for life. If he had been a big moneymaker, I wouldn't be surprised if it would have turned out differently.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 3, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
agam:
And you make no sense. So what sorts of things is a scientist permitted to believe?
What you really ought to be saying, is that scientists believe that the method they are following is for some reason the "right" way to do science, which, of course, requires that one address the question, what is science.
But did you go from talking about science to talking about the scientific method. Or do you believe that the two are the same?
Unless they are making tenure decisions.
And it sure seem to me like you believe that what you believe to be science you also believe to be relevant.
Comment by Mung — June 3, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Hi MikeGene,
To refresh myself, I took a look at the petition, and even you, Mike, would agree with the part that ID isn't science. In my humble opinion, it only targets Gonzalez to the extent that the faculty who signed it didn't want people to get the wrong impression of Iowa State. If you are suggesting that Gonzalez didn't get tenure because of the petition, I have to say I doubt he would have gotten tenure anyway, since his cranky hobby wasn't exactly a secret, and he didn't make up for it by making rain.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 3, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Not at all. If one accepts your LCD claim for the sake of argument then Gonzalez would meet the LCD in that one category but he has clearly exceeded the LCD in other categories. The funding argument is the last stand for the anti-academic freedom crew. Given enough time we could find out that others besides Hautpman based their decision on non-funding issues. If that were true then, as Paul Nelson has observed, anti-IDists look determined to create a playing field geared to ensure that ID never becomes science. If there is nothing to fear in this regard then why not retain an admittedly good teacher.
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Bradford,
Bradford, from what I have read, Gonzalez's research productivity at Iowa State hasn't been that great, and he clearly isn't bringing in much money. Anti-IDists aren't trying to prevent ID from becoming a science; they're convinced it never will be a science. They don't want to be stuck with an unproductive crank like Behe for decades to come, and I can't blame them. More importantly, they can't prevent ID from becoming a science by denying Gonzalez tenure; there are plenty of other employment options for Gonzalez.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 3, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
You're right. You can't stop uncomfortable data. Frankly though, if the shoe were on the other foot I would not deny tenure to one I disagreed with based on something he kept out of the classroom anyway. Then again I like a free exchange of ideas. Presumably a notable provost at ISU is on record as feeling the same way. You know who I'm referring to?
Comment by Bradford — June 3, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Hi Bradford,
There's nothing wrong with a free exchange of ideas. However, if you are not pulling your weight, you don't earn lifetime employment just by being controversial. $22,621 is pathetic compared to $1.3 million. BTW, if the average is higher than the median, that means the real heavy hitters at Iowa State pulled in well over $1.3 million before earning tenure, which makes Gonzalez's total look even more pathetic.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 3, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Does this mean that if intelligent design researchers get big grants from DI and fundamentalist religious foundations, that you will support them getting tenure?
Comment by mcromer — June 3, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Yet it's the only hard data point we have at the moment. It is a fact that the vote of at least one person who participated in the most meaning level had nothing to do with funding. Why do you want to ignore that? Also, consider the larger picture. Hauptman wrote a newspaper article explaining his vote in a manner that stepped all over the official explanation. It would seem reasonable that someone who would write a newspaper article explaining why Gonzalez does not deserve tenure would make similar arguments behind the closed door.
I think you are missing the point here. Yes, we know that you are closed-minded about this issue and that you get very hostile about ID. And as many critics have made clear, they think Gonzalez deserved this vote based on his ID views alone (we even have someone here spreading malicious gossip about Gonzalez). But the grant thing is the only legitimate excuse for those of us, on both sides of the aisle, who make an attempt to stand on principle and remain open- and fair-minded. You'll notice that I myself have not passed judgment on ISU. My focus has been on the way the academic blog critics have cheered the tenure decision and informed us of the subjective nature of tenure decisions. Now, we have something new - someone who voted admitting that his vote had nothing to do with funding, while agreeing the petition did target Gonzalez.
Here's how it goes down. If it turns out that Gonzalez brought in less money than any other person who got tenure, then ISU stands on solid ground and David Heddle's comments about the application not being bullet-proof comes into play. If it turns out that others have been granted tenure with the same (or less) level of funding, then it becomes clear his ID views played the pivotal role.
Ah, but why not tell us your opinion "“ if he was also a big moneymaker (in addition to the attributes acknowledged by Hauptman), should he have been granted tenure?
The interesting thing about this whole issue is how so many critics seem to be defending the research universities by treating them like corporations (its all about money and public image/relations). Contrast this to the views of another professor who is advocating academic freedom about another controversial case:
Comment by MikeGene — June 3, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Actually, its not.
Its not that clear, MikeGene. Its not clear to me that he has produced that much research at Iowa State, which is what would matter to Iowa State. I have also heard, though I can't confirm this, that he hasn't mentored graduate students, one of the factors the President mentioned that he considered.
This is America, MikeGene. Of course money matters. If Gonzalez had brought in $1,000,000+ in research grants, I would certainly look past his cranky hobby.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 3, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Hopefully this money issue will get worked out. I got this from the I am from MO blog.
Also this
Of course the next thing we will hear form the ID critics is that it is not enough to get grant money but it also must come from the right sources.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 3, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
June 4th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Vivid, I already pointed out that the DI is including a research grant Gonzalez got while at the University of Washington, and the new DI grant came after review of his tenure application was completed at the Departmental level. But even if one did give Gonzalez credit for all three of those, it still comes in at more than a million dollars below average.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 4, 2007 @ 12:24 am
June 4th, 2007 at 12:27 am
According to this report:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2...
outside research funding is not a published criterion for earning tenure at ISU.
So funding should not have had anything to do with granting (or denying) tenure.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — June 4, 2007 @ 12:27 am
June 4th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Aagcobb, one last question for today and give us an honest answer. If you were on the committee deciding the tenure matter for Gonzalez and funding was not a negative factor how would you vote? I'll hopefully find out tomorow.
Comment by Bradford — June 4, 2007 @ 12:30 am
June 4th, 2007 at 12:32 am
My understanding is that the 1.3 mill bandied about also included the physics dept….
Regardless I am sure your on board with the effort for ISU to release the relevant numbers?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 4, 2007 @ 12:32 am
June 4th, 2007 at 1:13 am
Hi Bradford,
Based on the information I currently have, I would vote no, regardless of whether or not Gonzalez was an IDist. The information I have is that his research productivity has declined significantly since he arrived at Iowa State. The article also says that none of his Iowa State graduate students have earned a PhD.* Declining productivity is not a quality I would want in someone I'm considering granting lifetime employment to. If anyone has information showing that I'm wrong about his research productivity since joining Iowa State, I would be willing to reconsider; the work he did at other Universities isn't particularly relevant to whether Iowa State should grant him tenure.
*corrected in edit.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 4, 2007 @ 1:13 am
June 4th, 2007 at 1:19 am
"To learn an art by the example of its practice is to accept an artistic tradition and to become a representative of it. Novices to the scientific profession are trained to share the ground on which their masters stand and to claim this ground for establishing their independence on it. The imitation of their masters teaches them to insist on their own originality, which may oppose part of the current teachings of science. It is inherent in the nature of scientific authority that in transmitting itself to a new generation it should invite opposition to itself and assimilate this opposition in a reinterpretation of the scientific tradition."
- Michael Polanyi
Comment by Mung — June 4, 2007 @ 1:19 am
June 4th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Hi Vivid,
Absolutely. Iowa State is a public institution and I strongly support openness in state government.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 4, 2007 @ 1:20 am
June 4th, 2007 at 2:52 am
It seems to me that the people who are the fastest to assert that ID is, or is not 'science' are the people least interested in questions about what 'science' actually means. As I understand it, there is something of a consensus in Philosophy of Science that the borders of 'science' (if the term has any meaning at all) are indistinct. Labelling ID 'not science' or 'science' is, as far as I'm concerned, a sign that someone is interested in power rather than truth.
Comment by BenK — June 4, 2007 @ 2:52 am
June 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
endoplasmicMessenger:
You wrote:
Unfortunately that particular source isn't correct; and not for the first time. The ISU Faculty handbook includes the following:
That quote (in case DaveScot or one of his acolytes is listening in) is taken from the 1999 version of the handbook, which was current when GG arrived at ISU - it isn't (as DaveScot has claimed on UD) a new requirement.
The Discovery Institute is also wrong in its claim as to GG's grants themselves. The NASA grant was given when he was still at Washington, and he did not obtain it - the PI did. He was only one of 24 Co-Investigators. The DI grant was given after the tenure application was submitted - hence the weasel wording about the date. In any event, another $50k is a drop in the ocean of the difference in grant attraction between him and his peers.
It is not entirely clear that even the Templeton grant is relevant; given the statement they published in 2005 from which the following is an extract:
So at the time of his tenure review GG had attracted to ISU none of the grants referred to by the DI; they either predated his arrival (Templeton and NASA), were given to another PI (NASA), or postdated the review (DI).
As a more general comment, ISU's handbook mandates annual reviews for all faculty; and of course GG should have been sent more detailed reasons (that publicly disclosed by ISU) why tenure has been refused, at each stage. GG has not disclosed those documents. Until he does so, we do not know whether he has been warned about his lack of productivity, both in publications and attraction of research grants. We can however guess - from the fact that GG himself hasn't made this complaint - that he was indeed warned, and that the reasons given to him for tenure refusal correspond with what has been said publicly by ISU.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 5, 2007 @ 9:21 am
June 5th, 2007 at 11:01 am
In academia, money belongs to the Researcher, not to the Institution (although the Institution surely gets its cut, usually to the tune of ~40%).
The NASA money, then, stays with whoever the PI is at UW. However, it is not irrelevant, as GG might still have some of his salary paid off of that grant, ISU is reaping the benefit of not having to pay that portion of his salary which the grant pays. Small benefit, but it's something.
However, the Templeton money appears to have been awarded to GG, and thus it moved with him when he moved to ISU. And money given after an application is still money. My wife has always been able to get new funding on her CV, even after deadlines. Imagine what would happen if an institution didn't:
Say my wife gets a grant from the CDC for $1,000,000 (she actually did, about this time last year). The application review deadline is July 1, but she doesn't get notice of funding until July 15. As long as the review committee has not actually met, she may provide updated information. The University would be MONUMENTALLY STUPID to disallow the inclusion. Right, like they're going to miss out on $400,000 because of a few days??
Heck, even after they've met, there is an appeals process (as there is for GG.) They would surely consider it then.
But, as others have said, funding is a red herring. His dissimulation notwithstanding, Hauptmann implicitly said, "I voted no because he believes in ID."
In this case, that appears to be no different than saying, "I voted against him because he's gay" … or, "because he's a Republican" … or, "because he's a Yankees fan."
If someone is a Yankees fan, but is also nevertheless "creative, intelligent, knowledgeable, [and] highly productive scientifically", he gets tenure.
Comment by Kepler — June 5, 2007 @ 11:01 am
June 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Kepler
You miss my point - or maybe I wasn't clear. GG was employed on tenure track on the basis that he would earn tenure by, inter alia, bringing in grants for research at ISU. Neither of the earlier grants that DI point to are relevant - he already had them when he went to ISU. If you like, they were part of what got him onto the tenure track; he can't double count them.
The DI grant - for what it's worth; exactly when did he get it awarded? Was it competitive, or was it given by the DI to bolster an appallingly weak grant record?
So far as Hauptmann is concerned; he's not dissimulated, he has been quite open that he considers that the work embodied in the Privileged Planet - a book that GG chose to put on his application and represented therefore as representative of his scientific research output - was not science. Hauptmann is entitled to that view - MikeGene shares the view that ID is not, at this stage, science. That view is entirely relevant when judging GG's suitability for tenure. GG's claims that ID is science are as relevant to tenure as a medical doctor's view that the germ theory of disease is outmoded and incorrect and should be replaced by faith healing; or to the decision whether to appoint a lifelong Yankees fan to life presidency of the Mets' fan club.
Having said that, Hauptmann's views are here the red herring. The final (at present) decision was made by the President on the grounds of the weakness of GG's academic and grant-obtaining record. Neither record, it appears, stands up to any kind of objective scrutiny.
Comment by Robin Levett — June 5, 2007 @ 5:48 pm