Marcus Ross and Methodological Naturalism
by machtOne major talking point for ID critics has been the supposed non-link between methodological naturalism (MN) and philosophical naturalism (PN). In doing this, they have committed themselves to an instrumental view of science. We use MN because it works, they say, but by using MN, this doesn't commit us to accepting PN. They can't say that MN leads to the truth, because if they did, it would link MN to PN. But they can't say that MN and PN are linked because that would look bad in the classroom and in the courts.
Marcus Ross seems to be taking MN very seriously. He also seems be taking these people at their word - that there is no link between MN and PN. Ross decided that he wanted to be a scientist and the way to do that was to accept the "ground rule" of MN. But the mild kerfluffle that Krauze mentioned the other day is interesting, since it seems to fly in the face of this standard meme from ID critics. Ross is being dishonest, we are told, for playing the game, for accepting the rules that science now seems to be operating by and for accepting the received wisdom that MN doesn't entail PN. Apparently, if you accept MN as a "ground rule" for science, but don't accept the results of that science as the truth, you are a liar.
This makes me wonder if all this talk about how MN doesn't entail PN is something they really believe. Somebody who truly believe that the former didn't entail the latter and that MN is a rule that scientists use because it works and not necessarily because it leads to the truth wouldn't accuse Ross of lying. Lying is a serious charge afterall. Note, though, that this has very little to do with what Ross believes about MN or the age of the earth or even if he was lying. This is about the consistency some of his critics in holding a instrumentalist position about science but then getting upset when a YEC'er does the same thing.
Ah, but this is different, you may be saying. MN may be agnostic on PN but it isn't agnostic on everything. Ross clearly believes things in direct contradiction to the scientific work he was doing. To say that MN doesn't entail PN doesn't imply that you can believe the universe is 6000 years old while doing scientific work that concludes it is billions of years old. Unfortunately for those who thought of this objection, it doesn't hold. By disconnecting PN from MN and by accepting MN because it works, we've accepted an instrumentalist stance towards all of science, not just some of it. We can't just say that sometimes science gives us the truth and sometimes science gives us what works.
Oh, but wait, others of you are saying … saying that MN works just means that MN leads to the truth. This isn't an instrumentalist position, this is just the claim that we use MN because it leads to the truth - it gives us true theories. Thats what we mean by "it works." This doesn't follow, though. If MN leads to the truth, then it would entail PN. And this contradicts the claim that MN doesn't entail PN. I'll put it another way. MN is the rule that tells us that science should act as though gods, angels, spirits, faeries, etc. don't exist. This means that a science working under the ground rule of MN shouldn't appeal to miracles or divine intervention or anything of the sort. The justification that is given for this, as I said above, is not that gods or angels or spirits don't exist or that miracles or divine intervention don't occur, but rather that this rule works. The only way we can connect "it works" to "it leads to the truth" is by saying that MN entails PN.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Good point macht. MN cannot dictate PN unless there are no boundaries to empiricism. If there are boundaries then one is entitled to have distinct and even conflicting views of the two. This is where EAs are exposed. They want to link MN and PN in the worse way. If materialism is correct then atheism has a strong prop. If not, atheism is problematic. In attempting to expose Ross EAs have exposed the intellectual achiles heel of their own position. The other side can contend that we must behave as if God does not exist but in doing so they make it impossible to assess the proposition either way. The more you look at the Ross story the clearer it becomes that this is not about Ross but rather about his critics.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 9:07 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Um, no. The claim "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" is a claim about the supernatural. Science can't tell us either way, because God and other supernatual actors are unconstrained and thus compatible with any conceivable facts.
The claim, "the earth is less than 10,000 years old", however, is a claim about the natural world. This claim is specific and testable, and as everyone here agrees, is as utterly wrong as anything ever has been in the whole history of science. It is as wrong as the claim that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 14, 2007 @ 11:21 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:32 am
macht wrote:
I hate to disagree with a fellow Telician, especially so soon after becoming a member, but I'm not sure I buy this. I think scientists have decided to accept MN, because they have no way of investigating Supernatural explanations. I think they really are trying to find the truth about Nature or the Universe, and they are hoping that MN will work. Their underlying assumptions are that Nature is rational and intelligible. I think we need a Theistic Metaphysics to justify these assumptions, which means Nature is always in danger of being invaded by the Supernatural. However, such a Theistic view would also justify science in looking for natural explanations.
However, I do not think MN excludes ID, since Intelligent causes may be Natural causes, and since there seem to be rational ways to identify Intelligent causes. But once science identifies Intelligent causes, it may not be able to tell us if the Intelligent cause is Natural or Supernatural. At most it can only assume that the Intelligent cause is Natural.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 11:32 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:35 am
The age of the earth is a claim about the natural world but the wording of Genesis and its interpretation can be viewed as outside the purview of MN. It always goes back to the same thing. As long as one is able to conduct research consistent with acceptable norms, one's PN is irrelevant. The green cheese analogy falls short. You don't know the location of the clock Ross has in mind. The days and nights of Genesis were specified in advance of the sun's existence. That's an indicator that earthly 24 hour periods may be inapplicable. The overriding issue though, is why should you care if these beliefs are checked in at the lab entrance.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 11:35 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Bilbo, keep the meaning of scope in mind when relating MN and truth. If there are boundaries to scientific knowledge then there are limits to what science is able to say about truth. We are attempting to learn the truth about the universe- at least some of us are. But if there is no way to investigate something there is also no way to make definitive conclusions based on an empirical discipline.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Would you give a PhD to a geologist who thought the moon was made of green cheese?
Comment by nickmatzke — February 14, 2007 @ 11:42 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Bradford:
True, I don't think there is a way to emprically investigate the Supernatural. But my Theistic view tells me that God did not create an irrational universe. So when scientists use MN and the evidence points to an old universe and Earth, my Theistic view tells me that they have probably discovered the "truth."
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 11:45 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Would you give a PhD to a geologist who thought the moon was made of green cheese?
No, but I would not deny one to a YECer. The clock makes the analogy imperfect.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 11:47 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Nick:
If he understood why science doesn't believe the moon is made of green cheese, and if he didn't use his PhD to promulgate the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, without any empirical evidence, then I think yes, I would give him a PhD….I think.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 11:48 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Bradford, if I understand the clock analogy, you're relying on Relativity to allow for two ways of dating the universe and the Earth, yes?
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 11:50 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Nick:
Nick, as a spokesperson for the NCSE, do you think Ross should have been denied his PhD?
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 11:55 am
February 14th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Bradford, if I understand the clock analogy, you're relying on Relativity to allow for two ways of dating the universe and the Earth, yes?
That's one way of looking at it. Another would be a clock located outside the universe (a divine clock). Interestingly, concepts like multiple universes and clocks ticking within different inertial frames would have seemed crazy throughout most of history. Science has a way of catching up with philosophy and religion.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 11:57 am
February 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Sure. Unless his specialty was selenology, and his thesis defended the cheese hypothesis. Then he'd have some 'splainin' to do. Otherwise who cares?
Please answer one for me, Nick.
Would you give a PhD to a medical candidate who believed that Jesus rose from the dead?
Comment by chunkdz — February 14, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Good question. How about it Nick. What would you do and why?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I don't believe the universe is around 10,000 years old.
But is it completely unreasonable for a YEC to believe that it is?
I don't think so.
A YEC'r is more than likely a Biblical literalist.
A Biblical literalist is in a position where they have to determine which is more rational:
The word of God or the scientifically stated age of the universe.
If they have perfectly valid reasons for trusting the word of God (maybe it speaks to them on a level more profound than science is able to speak to them, maybe they have evidence that shows that God more than likely exists, maybe there are other reasons in Scripture to trust the inerrant word of God, maybe they believe God is the author of both the universe and Scripture…. and that our current understanding is limited and flawed… ) then maybe it's not completely irrational.
What do they put their trust in? The inerrant word of God or the ever changing declarations received from science?
While I disagree with their conclusions, I still think they are being rational in the decision they are making.
So juxtaposing their belief with the thought the moon was made of green cheese is not warranted.
Comment by Doug — February 14, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Ah, so now we get a new definition of "methodological naturalism": Science must work from the assumption that there are only blind, material causes, and scientists are obligated to personally believe that the consensus explanations that science comes up with based on those assumptions are objectively true, but you're allowed to believe in "supernatural" things so long as they are entirely superfluous to reality, even in principle, and there is no rational reason to belief in them. Glad that's cleared up.
Comment by Deuce — February 14, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Long time viewer, first time poster. Um, hellooooo Orlando?
Firstly what a great blog you guys, and gal, have here. Been lurking for over a year, check it everytime I'm online. Mike Gene I plan on getting your book when it comes out and have been recommending to people I know. *cha-ching*
Dying to see where you go with it (those chapter titles are quite the tease) and have read most of the essays you have on your site, nice work.
Anywho…
M. Gene said:
Nick, as a spokesperson for the NCSE, do you think Ross should have been denied his PhD?
… And chunkdz asks:
Please answer one for me, Nick.
Would you give a PhD to a medical candidate who believed that Jesus rose from the dead?
Wow! What great questions. Quite the slippery slope you evo PR guys and defenders of "good" science [NCSE] have started down, eh Mr. Matzke. I forsee quite a the PR tap-dance on its way.
Argue your case man, quit attacking (attacking their lively-hoods and reputations) everybody who disagrees with you. Congrats are in order for the good Dr. and you know it. Do you disagree with his dissertation at all? I mean come on its not like the guy went for a PhD in geography for Pete's sake.
j/k Mr. Matzke and I enjoyed your flagellum 'paper' very much although its mostly over my head.
Why hasn't it went through the standard peer-review process by now? Certainly not for political reasons (like its antithesis surely would)… have you attempted to have it peer-reviewed? If not why? Just curious and thanks in advance for your time.
Regards
Comment by Rob R. — February 14, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Just for the record Eugenie Scott has written that,
"Science has made a little deal with itself: because you can't put God in a test tube…science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological materialism is the cornerstone of modern science."
IMO the way she phrases it the above statement does indeed conflate MN with PN. It clearly implies that an individual scientist must pretend to be an atheist or agnostic while he or she is in the Lab. But this is simply smuggling materialism, as I have said before, in through the back door. I don't believe empirical methodology is something most working scientists (or like myself engineers) need to be lectured about. I think our training and the demands of the work give us a lot of insight of how to solve specific problems. But, if we have to pretend to be an atheist or agnostic does that apply to our moral and ethical decisions as well? What kind of ethics and morality should we follow while we are doing our work? Something dictated by Ms. Scott?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 14, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
NickMatzke wrote:
In the sense I think you ask it, yes of course I would. To make it as clear as possible, if the student did impeccable research properly using the scientific method to demonstrate that the moon was not made of green cheese, but nevertheless he still believed it was, and even if he planned on teaching that it was, I'd without hesitation (though it might require holding my nose) award him a Ph.D. I wouldn't hire the fool, but he'd get his degree. Ph.D. committees are not charged with evaluating the amount of cognitive dissonance a student is willing to endure. They are only to evaluate the quality of the research.
This point is so obvious that I personally question the integrity of anyone who would refute it. By that I mean, there is no cogent, objective reason that I can see to deny a PhD for any reason other than unsatisfactory or incomplete work. Having read nothing to the contrary, nothing that makes a legitimate case that here is another reason why you shouldn't award the degree, and it applies to Ross I have no choice but to believe that what we are dealing with here is garden variety bigotry. People don't like what Ross believes, so they invent unconvincing reasons why he shouldn't have been awarded a degree.
He's being called dishonest, an unfounded charge, but also an irrelevant charge, unless it could be shown to apply to his data or his analysis. He could be the world's biggest liar, tax fraud, deadbeat dad, and all around charlatan, but if his thesis work meets the standard, he gets a degree. This ain't rocket science folks, it doesn't rise to the level of an ethical conundrum.
Comment by David Heddle — February 14, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Actually, this is exactly how I feel, and I bet Eugenie Scott also. I just wanted it to be clear that nose-holding was part of the responsible reaction.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Bradford writes,
Looks like Bradford's the bigot here. The notion that the moon is made of green cheese happens to be part of my religion.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
OK, next question. Would it be legitimate for a geology professor to refuse to take a student because the student thought the moon was made of green cheese, even if the student said this was their personal religious belief and would adhere to methodological rockiness in their research?
(So this question deals with *before* a student is admitted to a program.)
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Nick:
No, the bigots are those who think it is better to sexually molest a child than raise the child as a Catholic, who think religious parents are child abusers, who sign petitions to ban a religous upbringing, who liken religion to a virus and illegal narcotic. Those views are not uncommon on your "side," Nick.
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Are you saying Ross should not have been admitted to the PhD program?
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Looks like Bradford's the bigot here. The notion that the moon is made of green cheese happens to be part of my religion.
Heddle is right and I withdraw my green cheese statement. Nick, why did you pose the questions in the first place if you too go along with Dave H?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Nick,
Why do you feel that the belief in the moon being made of cheese on similar grounds as beliefs of YECrs?
I think I addressed why your juxtaposition is unwarranted.
Comment by Doug — February 14, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Hey, that's why we specifically argued against the views of Dawkins et al. throughout the Kitzmiller case. The ID people would have more credibility if they did the same with the YECs. But they don't, for crass political/religious reasons.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I propose that we consider how MN would apply to a miraculous event. I propose that we slip back in time to the point where Moses parted the red sea so the children of Israel could cross.
Let's assume, for starters (sorry Nick, I know you are incapable of such) that the event really happened exactly as described in the Bible. What would MN do with such an event?
Comment by bFast — February 14, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Nick:
Who was the lead endorser on the back cover of Forrest's book?
Who came to Dawkins rescue after he signed that petition?
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I just wanted to make it clear that YEC really is just as ridiculous, and so while granting a PhD in these sorts of situations is probably required, many scientists will have significant and legitimate qualms about it, and if this sort of thing happened a lot
Hopefully you can now understand why many scientists would instinctively answer "no" on the should-Ross-have-gotten-a-PhD question, just as you did with the green-cheese example.
Here's another example that I think expresses some quite legitimate sentiments:
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Mike, you're fighting a different battle here. Barbara Forrest doesn't equate religion with child abuse, she makes the quite legitimate point that the ID movement really is a trojan horse for creationism.
As for Dawkins, I have specifically said I don't agree with his child abuse claims. But incredibly, you seem to be complaining that I helped clear up the question of whether or Dawkins actually thought religion should be banned. He said he didn't and retracted his support for the petition which was being misinterpreted. Yet you still say he does, right here in this thread. You are wrong, and letting your hatred of Dawkins get the better of your rational side.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
So you take an anti-realist position on the knowledge science provides Nick, or do you think Science is incredibly limited in the scope of what it can provide knowledge about ?
The catch is that you can't advocate for a broad scientific realism, and make this claim.
After all, if the YEC's are right, then the claim you have made can never lead to actual knowledge about the way the world really is.
It seems like you want to have it both ways, but you can't do that.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Btw, has anybody else noticed that whenever someone tries to hawk scientific materialism as a guide to truth, while simultaneously trying to convince people that they aren't simply defining science as applied anti-religious philosophy, they nearly always focus on the bare existence of God, as if that were sufficient for any religion? It's always "Science cannot speak on the existence of God one way or another". Never "Science cannot speak on the existence of God, and whether or not he brought life and humans about intentionally" or "Science cannot speak on the existence of God, and whether He is the grounds of our moral sense" or "Science cannot speak on the existence of God, and whether our rational minds are an immaterial reflection of Him".
Of course, the reason they stick to the bare existence of God is that, as Matzke showed by example above, they view it as entirely superfluous and outside of reason. That is, they figure people can just take any entirely blind, material picture of the universe, and then imagine that there is also some big guy there in addition to it, without affecting the picture of the universe. Even this is wrong, since under materialist theories of the mind (like Pinker's), the self and personhood don't actually exist, which would render the concept of God meaningless, but that's the idea. And how exactly is some guy that doesn't do anything God?
But, even granting them that the bare existence of God is still "allowed" under their rules, it's both silly and condescending for them to pretend that this means they aren't discriminating against the religious and begging the question in favor of materialism. They're still hawking philosophical naturalism by simply declaring by definitional fiat that only material explanations are within the realm of rational consideration.
If someone wishes to hold science to materialistic assumptions, while not begging the question in favor of PN, then they *must* commit to a purely intrumentalist view of science (which is what MN is claimed to be). There's no other choice. And if they take an instrumentalist view of science, then they must concede that people's personal beliefs are entirely irrelevent to science, no matter how ridiculous they are. As macht said, you can't be an instrumentalist and say that sometimes science gives us the truth and sometimes science gives us what works.
The moment you say that *any* belief disqualifies anyone from *any* part of science, you've thereby denied the instrumentalist view of science, no exceptions. However, as Matzke has so aptly illustrated on this thread for us, most self-proclaimed MNers are really just PNers and neo-positivists who allow that science can't disprove the bare existence of a superfluous God, and who bring out the instrumentalist MN mantra as a sort of PR disclaimer when convenient, but who don't really follow it, and are quite willing to ignore it when it's not convenient.
Comment by Deuce — February 14, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
But can you take anything too serious from someone this emotionally unstable? Makes it out to sound as if the YECr just sucker-punched his kid and stole a pie that was cooling off on his window sill.
Comment by Doug — February 14, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Nick Matzke:
Oh, come on! Arguing against the "views of Dawkins et al." during the trial was necessary to prevent the judge from concluding that your position is exactly as metaphysically based as was the position of the Dover school board.
At least be honest about it, Nick. Because sure as you're born one of these days somebody's going to bring a case against the required indoctrination of public schoolchildren in Neodarwinism based on the metaphysics that comes attached. And much like what happened to Amanda Marcotte this week, all past anti-religious, pro-atheist pronouncements, statements/essays linking Neodarwinism with atheism, and sideline metaphysical associations are going to to be examined closely. Along with the current state of biological opinions on the matter, which is increasingly distancing itself from the NDS based on incoming evidence that flat doesn't support "orthodoxy."
Comment by Joy — February 14, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Nick, I was kind enough to answer your question. Would you please answer mine?
Comment by chunkdz — February 14, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Deuce writes,
Deuce,
All of these things could be true even if natural processes brought them about.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
No, YEC is not a ridiculous as the moon being made of green cheese. We have been to the moon and seen it is not made of green cheese. Nobody witnessed the beginning of the earth, therefore, the age of the earth is inferred from circumstantial evidence.
Keep fighting your Holy War Nick, you are as religious as they come.
Comment by Jehu — February 14, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Mike, you're fighting a different battle here. Barbara Forrest doesn't equate religion with child abuse, she makes the quite legitimate point that the ID movement really is a trojan horse for creationism.
There is nothing legitimate about it. The real Trojan Horse involved both deception and the use of force to impose the will of the Greeks on the Trojans. IDists back their views by pointing to empirical evidence and creationists take a different track by citing the authority of scripture. No deception is involved and certainly no use of force.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
If he met all of the usual qualifications, yes.
Quid pro quo, Clarice:
OK, next question. Would it be legitimate for a geology professor to refuse to take a student because the student thought the moon was made of green cheese, even if the student said this was their personal religious belief and would adhere to methodological rockiness in their research?
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Bilbo:
Bradford:
So with these explanations, we have a way of maintaining consistency between modern science's position that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and YEC's view that they are only thousands of years old. If that is Ross's position, then it's not really a question of different paradigms or of the legitimacy of MN. He could consistently say that the universe really is billions of years old, and also say the universe is really only thousands of years old. Is this Ross's view?
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Looks like you belong to the Ken Ham "Were you there?" school of science. Were you yourself on the moon? For you know they faked the landings.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Oh, I guess everyone should just stop using metaphors then. How many invocations of "Achilles Heel" involve actual heels? For goodness sake, man, think before you speak.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Nick,
You misunderstand me. I'm responding to your claim from earlier today:
I'm simply pointing out that not only does "your side" have its own wackos (the EAs), but that these wackos are also bigots. And they saturate "your side."
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
NickMatzke,
I don't there are any legitimate sentiments expressed there. It's a rant, nothing more. She wrote:
But of course, it doesn't matter whether she doesn't understand it (neither do I) or is angry (who cares?) or works very, very hard (what scientist doesn't?)"”and it is nonsense that Ross is, in any way, "discrediting" her field or her work. All that a YEC scientist can do is preach to the choir"”which is what he'll be doing at Liberty U. A field's reputation is made or lost by its scientific output"”not on the fact that it produces the occasional person on the fringe. If you go to one of the big APS meetings they'll have one or two sessions devoted to people, many with PhDs in physics, some tenured, claiming things like a few magic numbers explain all of physics. They don't discredit the field"”they're just there.
Comment by David Heddle — February 14, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
What you are not gettting Nick, is that evidence is not the same as truth. I know it is hard to understand but it is fact. Ross is without a doubt aware of the circumstantial evidence used to support an old earth. Ross, however, is not persuaded by that evidence for whatever reason.
Comment by Jehu — February 14, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
So with these explanations, we have a way of maintaing consistency between modern science's position that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and YEC's view that they are only thousands of years old. If that is Ross's position, then it's not really a question of different paradigms or of the legitimacy of MN. He could consistently say that the universe really is billions of years old, and also say the universe is really only thousands of years old.
That was my point. PN determines the lense through which we view the world. This differs from the green cheese comparison where a claim can be disproven. The above scenario cannot be debunked empirically; only philosophically.
Is this Ross's view?
I have no idea about that. I suggested a possibility to keep the other side from getting itchy trigger fingers.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Again you are confusing understanding the evidence used to arrive at the date of rocks with being persuaded by the evidence. A good geologist requires only understanding the evidence, not being persuaded by it.
Comment by Jehu — February 14, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Since you agree exactly with Heddle, am I right in assuming that this would include the requisite "nose holding" and that you would never hire someone who believed that dead bodies come to life after three days?
Well Dr. Lecterzke, yes. Ross seemed to produce exemplary work under similar circumstances. Maybe his work was even more airtight given the scrutiny that he was undoubtedly under. (I don't however think that green cheese and young earth are good analogies.)
You see a lot don't you doctor. Why don't you turn that high-powered perception at yourself and tell us what you see, or, maybe you're afraid to. - Clarice Starling
Comment by chunkdz — February 14, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
David makes some outstanding points that should not be overlooked:
Comment by MikeGene — February 14, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Oh, I guess everyone should just stop using metaphors then. How many invocations of "Achilles Heel" involve actual heels? For goodness sake, man, think before you speak.
Is this a case of Trojan Horse meaning whatever you want it to mean. The metaphor does not fit. There is no great ID conspiracy. There are however those who believe nature supplies evidence of purposeful and intelligent causal origins for life which is distinguished from a point of view that bases a claim on revelation expressed through scripture.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
If you are fighting a propoganda war involving easy labels and "smell tests" then maybe you have a point. But that is not what is going on here.
Comment by Jehu — February 14, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Jehu, you're quoting someone else there.
And, for the fundamentalists in the audience, in actual court cases circumstantial evidence is often better and stronger than eyewitness testimony.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 14, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Bradford:
If it is Ross's view, it would help if he stated it. It would help "the other side from getting itchy trigger fingers" more than if you or I suggest it.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Nick
Since I am a lawyer specializing in litigating biotechnology disputes, I know how evidence is weighted. Again, you are confusing evidence with truth. Both sides of a case can be supported by strong evidence, that doesn't make either one of them true. Often times evidence for the truth doesn't exist.
Comment by Jehu — February 14, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
From Nick's geology student:
"I am angry because here is someone who is clearly NOT a very good geologist but who has GOOD geological credentials…"
In what way is it "clear" that Ross is not a very good geologist?
"and he's essentially trying to discredit what is swiftly becoming my life's work."
That's the realities of life. Right now, there are also plenty of critics trying to discredit Ross' degree and career.
"I feel insulted, personally, by people like "Dr." Ross."
Wow. Ross probably doesn't even know she exists, and yet she feels personally insulted by him. And what's with the scare quotes around "Dr."
"Having a Ph.D geologist tell me that Earth is only 6,000 years old is absurd and makes me very angry and also very, very sad."
"Creationist geologists make me a saaad panda."
Seriously, there is nothing resembling an argument in this person's comments. It's a glorious example of the mind of a future scientist shutting tight and reacting with emotionalism when confronted with someone holding a telic perspective on life.
Comment by Krauze — February 14, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Something that's struck me after these dust-ups with Macht and Nick involving MN: Macht argues from principle and logical consistency, whereas Nick argues impressionistically, using ancedotes to support what he wants to argue for at the moment, without seeking to be consistent with what he's said before.
Take his "guy who believes the moon is made of green cheese" example, for instance. If he were concerned with being consistent, he'd follow where this line of thinking leads, and say "This shows that it matters what scientists personally believe to be true, because science is about truth. Therefore, an instrumentalist view of science is incorrect, which means that methodological naturalism is misguided". Then he would attempt to stay logically consistent with this conclusion in the future, and we'd never hear him parrot the MN/PN line again. Anybody want to place a bet that this is actually going to happen?
Of course he's not going to be consistent, because then he'd be on record disagreeing with himself next time he finds it convenient to play the MN card. The point of the green cheese example wasn't to get anybody to think rationally and derive the logical principle that follows from it, but to create an impression. It was meant to engage the emotions, not the intellect. You're supposed to go "Hmm, a scientist who thinks the moon is made of cheese. That doesn't feel right somehow" and not think past that. The same with the geologist who "feels insulted" by Ross. You're just supposed to feel bad, not think clearly. When he wants to support the contradictory position of MN sometime in the future, he'll no doubt have some other story to support it (the spectre of meteorology being set back because people assume that Zeus throws lightning bolts seems a good scenario).
*sigh* I guess this is to be exprected from a PR 'droid
Comment by Deuce — February 14, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I find it very disconcerting that Nick would deny his own words when 1) MikeGene explicitly said they were his comments from earlier in the same day (namely, today, the 14th) and 2) those remarks can be found on this very site.
But of course, Ross is the dishonest one.
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 14, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Nick was referring to this quote:
Jehu was quoting me.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Ah, then I retract my accusation of dishonesty and make a new one of being quite unclear!
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 14, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Jehu posted at 2:46, and Nick at 2:48, so Nick probably hadn't seen the 2:46 post while he was writing his reply to Jehu's 2:38 reply.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I hope everyone realizes that my last "accusation" was in jest. I'll admit to my misreading.
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 14, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Now we do.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 1:27 am
"I wouldn't hire the fool, but he'd get his degree. Ph.D. committees are not charged with evaluating the amount of cognitive dissonance a student is willing to endure. They are only to evaluate the quality of the research."
–David H
My committee took the notion of "Philosopher of the doctrine of…" in Ph.D rather seriously. Ideally, just "doing the work" is not supposed to be sufficient. It usually is, admittedly. I'd grant the degree if he was a YEC b/c he was compelled to believe that way by divine dictate. If, on the other hand, he *believed* there was good scientific reason to accept young earth, and I *knew* that was his belief, then he's clearly just doing a dog and pony show. It's dishonest; I don't see how people can so readily dismiss that. On top of that dishonesty–which may or may not be enough to deny the degree–if his reasoning for believing as he does is patently bad, then he doesn't deserve the degree b/c he lacks the requisite abstract reasoning skills . So yes, mark me down as one of the bigots. You can be a YEC and get the Ph.D., but only if you acknowledge that your YEC-ness has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Comment by great_ape — February 15, 2007 @ 1:27 am
February 15th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Yep, you are a bigot. My guess is that your bigotry is driven by a deep fear that there is a God, which causes you to push from your mind as far away as possible anything that suggests that there may be a God. This means demonizing any person that finds evidence for a young earth as dishonest or somehow flawed.
Dr. John Baumgardner for one is a geophysicist with a Ph.D. from UCLA who has distinguished himself in mathmatically modeling plate tetonics on a supercomputer. He believes there is good evidence for a young earth and I do not believe he is either stupid or dishonest.
See his site here: http://globalflood.org/earthag...
If you want to make comparisons, the evidence for a young earth is far better than the evidence for abiogenesis. Yet you probably believe in abiogenesis don't you? How lame is that?
Please don't pretend your belief in abiogenesis has anything to do with science.
Comment by Jehu — February 15, 2007 @ 2:14 am
February 15th, 2007 at 4:14 am
[High Horse}
There is no such thing as 'methodological naturalism'. If we define science as 'trying to explain everything in purely natural terms' we'll find that we've implicitly defined 'natural' as 'the sorts of things that science deals with'. I am yet to see a definition of these terms which is not either circular, question begging, or which excludes some mainstream science from MN.
[/High Horse]
Comment by BenK — February 15, 2007 @ 4:14 am
February 15th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Great ape:
I'm glad you admitted this as it completely undercuts your case. As you note, the common practice is that "it usually is." But when it comes to Ross, suddenly he is singled out and targeted for "˜ideal' treatment. This is how witch-hunters typically function; a standard, not typically applied, is suddenly found and applied post-hoc. This is not honest. If you have a problem with people like Ross, you need to first take some major steps across the board to transform the "usually is" to the "ideal." Until then, as you note, you are simply rationalizing bigotry, where the "ideal" is pulled out when sociologically convenient.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2007 @ 7:01 am
February 15th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Great ape:
Okay, then please present the following list:
1. The philosophy courses you took as a PhD student.
2. The philosophy texts you had to read as a student.
3. The philosophy articles you had to read as a student.
4. The topics of the philosophy seminars that you had to attend.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2007 @ 7:08 am
February 15th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Great ape,
So how are you going to determine this? Is your idea of a PhD thesis defense to probe the religious views of your candidate? If so, it would be honest to let the public know that such probing is deemed acceptable and that the ability to get the PhD depends on the answers.
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2007 @ 7:20 am
February 15th, 2007 at 9:14 am
As Marcus told me on the phone yesterday, "Universities give scientists degrees. They don't ordain them."
Ordination — including a profession of belief — seems to be what Great Ape wants.
Scott Aaronson spells out beautifully why "belief" in science is entirely beside the point:
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/...
Comment by P A Nelson — February 15, 2007 @ 9:14 am
February 15th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Got it.
Comment by chunkdz — February 15, 2007 @ 10:39 am
February 15th, 2007 at 11:57 am
After doing a bit of research I have concluded that it is legally and constitututionally irrelevant whether or not Marcus Ross believes in something called "Creation Science" or whether or not he believes he can prove empirically that the earth is only 10,000 yrs old. The courts have already decided that such a belief is based on religion, not science (Mc Clean 1982 and Edwards 1987). Even Kitzmiller (2005) is, I think, relevant here. In each case the court over ruled the defendants argument that their view was scientific. Therefore, according to precedent the only way we can see Ross' belief is as a religious one. The constitution protects and guarantees the individuals free exercise of religion. It is also irrelevant whether outsiders judge that belief as consistent or even rational: the state cannot become involved in the busines of micromanaging the religous beliefs of it's citizens without violating their fundamental rights. I'd be interested in what any legal scholars out there think about this.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 15, 2007 @ 11:57 am
February 15th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
My concern is broader than Ross and his young age belief. Judges are in a poor position to distinguish between a scientifically supported position and one that is "religious." The Ross case is not the preferred example but it is not difficult to conceive of positions that could be construed as religious due to court edict rather than a fair assessment of one's position. One need not cite an over-arching theory in support of a valid scientific point. It is enough to offer counter-examples to existing theories, or as the case may be, point out the paucity of examples in support of existing theory.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
great_ape:
Dictionary.com on "Abstract":
'Seems to me that if Marcus Ross really believes that the data points to a young earth, he has demonstrated phenomenal abstract reasoning skills — "apart from concrete realities". Secondly, I suspect that Ross also demonstrated an abstract reasoning that seems beyond you. I'm sure he thought something like this, "If I present my full, young earth, interpretation of the data, I'll never get my Ph.D., it'll be smart for me to present a clear understaning of the current paradyme first, get my Ph.D., then take on the challenge of presenting an alternative case." For you to be incapable of this type of reasoning, in my opinion, shows that you are the one who lacks abstract reasoning skills.
Comment by bFast — February 15, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
"If you have a problem with people like Ross, you need to first take some major steps across the board to transform the "usually is" to the "ideal." Until then, as you note, you are simply rationalizing bigotry, where the "ideal" is pulled out when sociologically convenient." –MikeGene
The case of Ross simply made me further reflect upon what the ideal should be; I'm not saying it would be fair to single out Ross in this respect. If I applied this criteria to Ross, I'd be obligated to equally apply it to anyone who wrote a thesis that blatantly contradicted positions they are *known* to hold. If I had to rule on this Ross case, I'd heavily weigh the fact that others have not been treated similarly, and in a very important sense, it is unfair to treat him differently. There is the idea of justice here as well, and in this case, it is conflicting with that of basic intellectual honesty. And no, I'm not for blanket litmus tests for religious beliefs by any means. But when the religious belief system directly intersects the science at hand, something has to give. There is a direct conflict here. Either he believes what he's writing in his thesis or he doesn't. The fact that we find out he doesn't is associated with his religious belief does not mean we are making a litmus test about his particular religion. I wouldn't intentionally ask him about his religion to expose this conflict out. (How about a don't ask don't tell policy?) But once its known, you have to evaluate the situation.
"1. The philosophy courses you took as a PhD student.
2. The philosophy texts you had to read as a student.
3. The philosophy articles you had to read as a student.
4. The topics of the philosophy seminars that you had to attend." MGene
It so happened that I had a degree in philosophy before getting my science PhD. In getting that degree, it was suggested on multiple occasions by Profs that those acquiring expert knowledge in a given field are in the best position to grapple with its philosophical issues, regardless of training in academic philosophy. That was part of the reason I chose not to pursue academic philosophy despite an avid interest. It is my philosophical position, and evidently that of my committee, that one needn't be a professional philosopher to philosophize.
"For you to be incapable of this type of reasoning, in my opinion, shows that you are the one who lacks abstract reasoning skills." –BFast
I knew as I was writing that entry, that it was only a matter of time before someone took up that all-too predictable jab. Congratulation for being the first contestant to seize the low-hanging fruit.
"Is your idea of a PhD thesis defense to probe the religious views of your candidate? " –MGene
No, and I would condone no such thing. We are, however, discussing this particular case. No probing or religious litmus test is required. We are dealing with the evidence already at hand for his committee, namely that he doesn't believe his own thesis. And here "belief" is simply a signpost, indicating that there exists additional justifications/data/evidence, directly relevant to his work (i.e. concerning the age of the earth) that he is intentionally concealing. I feel it's necessary to fish out what those are, and, what they are should determine whether the degree is granted. It's not the religion. I'm a theist. It's the idea that he *might* think there's science to back up YEC that bothers me. If a Ph.D. candidate thinks that, and I know it, then I want to them to tell me about that science, and *that* should be very enlightening. If there's no science, then it's fine; you believe that way because you must. I have no problem with that. I feel that people here are seizing upon buzzwords like "belief" to change the nature of the debate to something akin to church/state separation. Yet I feel the crux of the matter is that there is an inconsistency between his model of reality and what it is he is conveying to his peers. That implies dishonesty. I'd like to think that it has nothing to do with his YEC-ness etc, but sure, I admit that I focused my *attention* on this case in particular because he's a YEC, which I feel is an extremely absurd view of the world in this day and age, but I'd like to think my arguments are more than simply rationalization for my automatic revulsion at the idea of a newly minted YEC PhD geologist. As humans, we can only do our best to avoid the irrational pitfalls stemming from our personal biases; I do not claim to have done anything more than that. We are all bigots in that sense; I do not find myself wanting for company.
Comment by great_ape — February 15, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
This is complete rubbish. Science does not require belief, it requires only understanding evidence for or against a theory. People, including you, have biases whether philosophical, religious, cultural, or political. If, in their personnal belief, someone else's bias causes them to discount evidence you feel is strong or heavely weight evidence you think is weak, so what? Unless you are interested in silencing oppostion to your view.
As I pointed out before, John Baumgardner has made valuable contributions in the field of geophysics and he did it in the process of trying to make a workable model for his YEC view. I don't believe Baumgardner is dishonest.
Comment by Jehu — February 15, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Bradford, You worte:
My concern is broader than Ross and his young age belief. Judges are in a poor position to distinguish between a scientifically supported position and one that is "religious."
I share a lot of your concern. However, the cases I cited have already become established precedent. My post was meant to answer critics who now want to put Ross on trial in the court of public opinion. (So this sort of thing won't ever happen again) It seems that many of them want to have it both ways: they agree with the court decisions that Creation Science is really religion but the want to deny any one like Ross who would seek a similar education or degree because their scientific theory is not defensible. The only problem with that, of course, is that the courts have ruled that such views are not science but religion… I guess the big irony is that court decisions that were once seen as detrimental to the YEC agenda now provide it with some legal cover.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 15, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I think there is some parallel here between courtroom judges and jurors who might be called upon to enforce laws they find distasteful and wrong. I view Ross in a comparable light….
If Ross thinks that there are higher truths than what mainstream science proposes, then that should not be held against him. Like a judge and jury in a bind, he played by the rules, hoping some day the current day rules will be overturned becuase they are contrary to truth.
Finally, as a former OEC Darwinist who had no theological problem with OEC Darwinism (though a Presbyterian today, I was raised in a Roman Catholic home where dad bought me books that taught me evolutionary theory), but was persuaded otherwise in recent years by basic scientific arguments laid out by MIT PhD Walter Brown, I'm not so sure the scientific community should be so unwelcoming of skepticism of sacred cows. Science ought to welcome novel viewpoints that can be defended empirically. The correct viewpoint should be identified by empiricism, not by systematic academic genocide of people like Marcus Ross.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 15, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
"If Ross thinks that there are higher truths than what mainstream science proposes, then that should not be held against him." –Sal
I agree. It is that possibility–and I don't know if this is the case–that he thinks there are "lower truths" that conflict with mainstream science that I find disturbing.
Comment by great_ape — February 15, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
John, there may be legal cover to a point. As long as a viewpoint is legally labeled as religious in nature it would appear that its capacity to make a scientific statement is compromised. That may be the real lesson here that extends beyond Ross. The trend of precedent decisions can change with time. In my view legal decisions largely reflect the societal values of an era. They may do so imperfectly because law school professors are likely to lean to the left of society as a whole. However if trends can go one way in one era, they can reverse gear in another. Ultimately developments in science will influence court decisions. This is one reason why it is foolish to think Judge Jones has made a permanent landmark effect on the legal landscape. It's also helpful to remember the world is much bigger than America and its legal system.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I agree. It is that possibility"“and I don't know if this is the case"“that he thinks there are "lower truths" that conflict with mainstream science that I find disturbing.
One can accept Genesis without understanding the how of it. That's not to say the acceptance is inherently illogical or even in conflict with scientific norms. I offered examples yesterday of logical scenarios that vary with the location of a clock. None of them would pose pragmatic difficulties to the practice of paleontology.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
great_ape,
Question: If Richard Dawkins worked towards a PhD. in Philosophy of Science, did superb work, and wrote a great dissertation defending arguments for the validity of ID as science should he be denied it because he thought it was a bunch of hooey?
Comment by Steve Petermann — February 15, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Let me state my views on this. People sit in judgement like you and PhD committees. They, like Eugenie Scott, may feel it their moral obligation to deny a diploma. Fine. No amount of argumentation will change such biases.
What would be fair is that people like Ross know up front if they'll be axe for their views. If that's the case, time to go elsewhere or find another major.
I have faith the facts in the end will prevail. Brilliant minds might have to live in exile in other fields until the evidence is so overwhelming one side is forced to capitulate.
But first consider that in order to disprove the idea that the square root of two is rational, one must first assume it is true in order to demonstrate it is false. I may already accept the square root of two is irrational, but I must at first accept the opposite if I were going to succeed in proving what I believe. As far as I can tell, I'm not as doctrinarian as Marcus (of course he is not here to speak for himself so I am guessing a bit), but I might be inclined (had I the time) study Old Earth Darwinism in order to demostrate it was wrong. It would be much like assuming the square root of two is rational in order to demonstrate the fallacy of the assumption. In light of that, why then should getting a PhD in a field one rejects be such a crime?
Should the scientific community despise such an endeavor, especially if there is a chance prevailing views are at variance with empirical reality?
Thus, it ought to be acceptable to confer a degree to someone in a field they expect to overturn if they demonstrate competence in the prevailing paradigm. Einstein knew of Newtonian mechanics and Maxwells aether, but overturned them. If he privately held views of relativity and anti-Newtonian ideas, should he be subject to reprisal? DeBroiglie encountered a similar problem with "wave like properties of matter". So heretical was the idea that some questioned the idea of granting him a PhD. Thankfully, reason prevailed.
Shouldn't science welcome the challenge of heretical ideas? Is our faith in empiricism and the facts so weak that we must resort to thought policing?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 15, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Salvador wrote:
Salvador,
I asked the following questions of Mike Gene here and here, but he wouldn't answer on either occasion. Perhaps you will?
1) Do 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?
2) Do you think that Liberty University should admit and grant degrees to atheists, provided that they meet the same academic standards as theists?
Salvador again:
Shouldn't religion welcome the challenge of heretical ideas? Is our faith in empiricism and the facts so weak that we must resort to thought policing?
Comment by keiths — February 15, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
hi keiths,
It does and always has. In Christianity there has been a long line of thinkers who have been considered heretics by others. See my list of recent liberal theologians here. Of course there will always be dogmatists who are not open to challenge but that can be found in any human endeavor.
Comment by Steve Petermann — February 15, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
keiths:
I don't understand your request. Are you claiming that theologies are based on empiricism? That 'religion' is equivalent to science?
Because I don't understand these two odd questions, it would help if you clarified. Religious denominations do entertain challenge to established ideas and determine positions by committee on various levels, and finally by vote. But empirical evidence is not necessary to interpretational policies. These processes are politics, not science.
And no one's policing thought on such things - one is always free to disagree, and if that doesn't work out one is free to find a more acceptable home. Or exit the world of organized religion altogether. There are no police at the door, no panels to whom one must give satisfactory defense, no discipline's reputational hit squad to wreak havoc on one's life, career or family.
So… what do you mean?
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2007 @ 6:04 pm