PZ Myers on Tenure and ID
by MikeGeneBiologist and associate professor PZ Myers explains why Francis Beckwith does not deserve tenure:
I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, I will vote against them. If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I'd rather not have crackpots promoted. Beckwith may be a nice fellow with a commendable publication record, but when it gets right down to it, his untenable position on intelligent design puts him smack in the middle of the tinfoil hat brigade. And that position on ID is a focus of many of his publications, so it is certainly a legitimate criterion for judging him.
Later in the comments section, Myers rationalizes his closed-minded position as follows:
It's a matter of whether it screws up their ability to do their job. People have a right to do any crazy damn thing that doesn't harm others outside the workplace…but when they're advocating lunacy in their profession, then it's bye-bye time.
This, of course, is muddled thinking.
The tenure review process is designed to determine whether someone has "the ability to do their job." The junior faculty member has six years to construct a track record of success. During these six years, the junior faculty member acquires teaching evaluatons from students and colleagues. The junior faculty member acquires grants and sets up a lab with a productive research program. The junior faculty member develops a reputation of collegiality and service within the department and the university. If claiming that ID 'theory' is science means you are part of the "tinfoil hat brigade" and this interferes with one's ability to do their job, this should impact negatively on these conventional criteria used to vote for tenure. In other words, Myers's criterion is an extrinsic litmus test. If thinking that ID is science is as bad as he says it is, the candidate's ability to secure good evaluations, grants, and publications will be compromised and Myers's criterion is redundant and superfluous. If the candidate is able to succeed according to the conventional measures for tenure, Myer's criterion is falsified and becomes nothing more than an attempt to institutionalize his prejudice.
But let's not stop here. Either Myers is a lone crank or his views are shared by others in academia. If it is the latter, the sociological implications are immense. A commmon argument against ID is that it presents no research and publications in the mainstream peer reviewed literature. But Myers is one of those peer reviewers. Since he has admitted he would deny tenure to someone who thinks ID is science, it stands to reason he would also deny the hiring of any ID proponent. Yet to conduct ID-based research to generate preliminary data for grant funding purposes, the person is in essense declaring his belief that ID is science. In other words, an attempt to get a ID-based research program off the ground is reason, according to Myers, for kicking you out of academia.
April 17th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Speaking of muddled thinking….
You seem to presuppose that ID – whatever that happens to mean to you – is science. That it therefore deserves, somehow, to make it past peer review. And you seem to be saying that because folks like PZ are the reviewers, and he (they) do not think ID is science from the word go, then ID, even though scientific, will be suppressed and ID advoactes will be denied tenure, etc.
Ok…
So what groundbreaking ID science can we see in the latest issue PSCID?
What about Rivista?
Surely, the reviewers for these prestigious journals are not prejudiced against ID science?
Comment by derwood — April 17, 2006 @ 8:45 am
April 17th, 2006 at 8:59 am
derwood:
I have made it clear in the past that I do not think ID is science.
As for the rest, it is dangerously close to being off topic and I will toss off-topic replies. I'll address you assertions tonight.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2006 @ 8:59 am
April 17th, 2006 at 9:13 am
I think you're reading into MikeGene's article a 'presumption' that isn't there. In synopsis, the article reads:
1.PZ Myers argues that ID supporters should be denied tenure as a matter of course, because support for ID demonstrates an inability to 'do the job' of a senior faculty member.
2. PZ Myers is wrong in this because if it were true that ID supporters were unable to 'do the job' then they would be screened out by the conventional tenure process.
3. If it is the case that a majority of influential scientists believe that ID supporters should not be hired in any paid scientific role, then the argument against ID's scientific status on the grounds that 'no ID-friendly paper has passed peer-review (except for one, and that doesn't count because the reviewers were incompetent)' and such are essentially circular. Why is ID not science? Because it does not pass peer review. Why won't peer reviewers pass it? Because it's not science.
At no point in this article is it assumed that ID is, in fact, science. The argument is first that ID support should not be automatic grounds for denial of tenure, and second that the argument against ID's scientific status on the basis of authority, ie. because prominent scientists say it isn't, is deeply suspect.
Comment by BenK — April 17, 2006 @ 9:13 am
April 17th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Mike,
Our IDEA chapters had attempted to do informal polling on the issue as well as to get reporters to ask the question of tenure denial. As much as I disagree with PZ, I much prefer he be publicly open about his position. What would disconcert me more is if people publicly said they wouldn't deny tenure, but privately vote to do so.
I am afraid the feeling is widespread. Myers however is among the first not to skirt the issue, others however, have evaded or obfuscated answering the question. Most people who privately hold prejudices usually aren't quick to let the world know. Myers however, is never one to hold back.
I'm surprised the reporters have not picked up on this. I've tried to get them to press the issue, but to little avail.
The question then is if this feeling is widespread, what would be the remedy? Briefly, ID will have to make it's mark in private industry, carried by engineers and physicists turned system biologists. I can't see any other remedy given people like Myers will be able to perpetuate a stranglehold on progress.
I would much rather departments be up front by saying "IDers are not welcome" so that IDers can go where they really might have a chance.
I regret to say, the sociological impact of the willingness to deny tenure has been immense and will continue to be. The one silver lining is the traditional discipline of biology is slowly getting usurped by engineers and physicists. The culture and mindset there is far more ID friendly and always will be.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2006 @ 11:37 am
April 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
My personal opinion is that our educational institutions–from the public schools to the Ivy League universities have been gradually taken over in the past hundred years or so by the anti-God (anti-supernatural if you will) crowd, basically because good, competent people like our present ID people were not very involved and let them do it. The results in the public schools are obvious and similar results are beginning to show at the college level as well.
Rather than try to fix all this, I believe the only remedy is to do an "end run" such as what Peter Vardy is doing in the UK with some excellent success. Dawkins is hoppin' mad about this by the way. The wildly successful Home-school movement in this country is another example of an "end run" around monopolistic government schools. The next frontier is universities who mostly have a Darwinistic monopoly on science classes … it was Christians who invented universities, and it can be Christians who RE-invent them complete with balanced teaching and fair tenure rules (or maybe with no tenure at all … perish the thought!) … maybe we could even add the feature of getting them OFF GOVERNMENT WELFARE! What a concept!
I know of at least one such upstart college which is having tremendous success … maybe you've heard of Patrick Henry College http://www.phc.edu. My plan, though an ambitious one, would simply be to just put all unfair colleges out of business by building better ones. I've never done this on the education front, but the strategy worked very well in my most recent business.
Comment by afdave — April 17, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Just curious…Is there an appeal process? And would Myers' statement provide grounds for an appeal?
Comment by Bilbo — April 17, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
mmm… so, let me understand. By this logic, whatever a professor does or claims in his/her areas of competence is irrelevant for tenure purposes, as long as it doesn't affect his/her narrowly measured productivity in terms of published papers, grants and academic duties? Or is there a line somewhere? Say, an astronomy professor who successfully studies the Crab Nebula but also goes around claiming the Earth is flat? Or a virologist who published a lot on influenza but also says HIV does not cause AIDS and people should ignore safe sex advice? An archeologist who studies the Aztecs, but thinks the Mayan pyramids were built by aliens?
At some point, there must be a case in which it is legitimate for an institution to just say: look, this may be a good guy in his field, but his presence in our department is an embarassment to the rest of us. Tenure is not just a measure of productivity, but a recognition of one's peers' esteem and trust.
This may have nothing to do with Beckwith at all, of course – I have no way to judge his productivity, and whether his work is valued by his peers or not. However, this thing seems to have been blown out of proportion. Ultimately, while it's certainly upsetting and traumatic to be denied tenure, if Beckwith is worth as much as his supporters seem to think, a true leader in his field, he has nothing to fear. Some other institution will snatch him up in no time, offer him tenure and accolades, and bless their good luck and the bad judgement of the Baylor faculty.
Still, one cannot ignore that there is more to tenure than papers published, grants obtained and courses taught.
Comment by Andrea — April 17, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
How about you, Andrea? A biology professor is pro-ID. Is that sufficient grounds for tenure denial if you were to make a vote in your department?
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
"Tenure is not just a measure of productivity, but a recognition of one's peers' esteem and trust."
I agree with that entirely, but if the purpose of denying tenure is to squelch all opposing views by declaring them unscientific then that is just wrong. And it's not like they have a really complex argument why ID isn't science. All they say is it's religion. The uninformed masses (fed by the compliant media) understand, and the case is closed. That's their plan. Doesn't appear to be working too well though.
Comment by jasonng — April 17, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
That's not enough information. Usually, however, being "pro-ID" goes along with clear signs of poor scientific judgment and practice. For instance, if Behe were not tenured, I think denying him tenure would be appropriate – his arguments are not only scientifically faulty, but they are contemptuous of scientific practice, and his scientific productivity in the past decade has been abysmal. Someone like Axe, I may be more open about, but of course I would have to know him better.
So, it really depends – in general, I'd say that if one did unuarguably good science and still supported ID, they would have nothing to fear, but I have never met or heard of anyone who fits that description.
As I said, unless you are for an academic free-for-all, with all kinds of nutty and fringe ideas deserving official recognition and an endowed chair just for intellectual diversity's sake, in some sort of academic affirmative action program like the one Fuller advocated in Dover, clearly there is a limit beyond which what you call "squelching of opposing views" becomes just sensible peer review. Where you want to draw the line may be different from where the scientific community currently draws it, but a line is a line. If ID advocates want to make the statement that ID is scientific, they should try to do science instead of politics.
Comment by Andrea — April 17, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
"If ID advocates want to make the statement that ID is scientific, they should try to do science instead of politics."
I'm sorry you don't see it, but Darwinists are playing politics by denying IDists their degrees/positions because they subscribe to ID and not the "party line". You're assuming that ID belongs in the flat earth pile, ruling it out before it gets a chance.
Comment by jasonng — April 17, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Jasonng:
that's just an excuse, really. There are several ID advocates with academic positions and access to labs: Behe, Mike Gene, Axe, Minnich, some of the people who testified in Kansas, not to mention all the supposed "scientists" on the DI list of "dissenters", and all the eager IDEA students we keep hearing about. ID advocates have their own journal to protect them from "censorship" and freely publish their results, PCID. They also have spent millions of dollars over the past decade in PR, lawyers and political campaigns, so they certainly are not short of funds. Dozens of people, ten years, millions of dollars. Where is the science? Let's be serious.
Comment by Andrea — April 17, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Thank you for your openness on this sensitive issue. I don't agree, but you've been more direct than others. Thank you.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Sal, if you quote me on this, I would appreciate if you did so correctly, including specifying my reasons. For instance, the sentence you quote above in isolation clearly does not reflect my overall position on the matter.
Since I have observed you purposefully misquote or even fabricate quotes in other occasions, pleaser consider yourself warned on the issue.
Comment by Andrea — April 17, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
[...] t Telic Thoughts, Mike Gene ponts out that PZ Myers would vote against tenure to an IDer: PZ Myers on Tenure and ID. The question about tenure denial has been a question I've been trying to get rep [...]
Pingback by Uncommon Descent » Professors admit they’ll deny tenure to IDers — April 17, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Andrea,
Because of your openness in your response to me, at Uncommon Descent I did not even mention your name.
I will let the reader visit the thread on his own. I know this is too delicate an issue to allow any possiblity of misquoatation.
Entrapment is not my personal policy. Let me know if you have any other issues and I will do my best to have you accurately represented.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
By the way, that was jerk thing to say about me and untrue, but I'll still honor your request because I do try to play the game fair.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Andrea, Ok since I quoted you in this thread which was only a few posts above, here let me make amends:
Sheesh, the reader only needed to go up a couple posts to see what I was referencing. And yes, that sentence really stood out and it was that sentence I was commenting on, that's why I quoted it. Sheesh.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 17, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
"Where is the science? Let's be serious."
I'm not a scientist so I can't speak for them. But I've read a couple of ID books and some of them are in fact right there on the bar on the right side of your screen. The fact that ID attracts people of various beliefs and worldviews shows that this isn't another creationist ploy to get religion into schools.
I think what really needs explaining is why are scientists continuing to come forward to support something that is supposedly baseless. You admitted yourself that these scientists would be denied tenure. And they're not stupid, they know that could happen when they come forward to support something so controversial.
Look at the list of Steves that support Darwinian evolution. The people who sign that have nothing to worry about. It's about as dangerous as fighting in a war and being the guy at the back with an army of millions covering you. But the dissenters are publicly joining the other side. Who in the world would do that, if Darwinism was really winning? That does not make sense at all if you ask me.
Comment by jasonng — April 17, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
From Sal's UD post:
Yeah, I mean, wouldn't it be shocking if obtaining an academic job may require fulfilling certain standards and adhering to certain principles that the local faculty and administration consider necessary for the position? I mean, what next? People shamelessly putting these utterly artificial requirements in their job ads, such as these, from fundamentalist Liberty University?
(By the way, LU has all the rights to hire whoever they please for these positions. However, to my knowledge no such requirement exists or is planned against ID advocates in any secular University.)
Also, Sal, I had no idea you were going to link to the thread right away, I was just warning you against misquoting me in the future. It may be a "jerk thing to do", but since you have done it before, I thought I'd rather err on the side of caution, even if it meant being blunt.
jasonng:
I think you answered yourself: since so many people feel that their career is not particularly threatened by signing the DI petition, then it must be that their careers are not particularly threatened by doing so.
As for "winning" and "losing", that's not how science works. Objectively, judging by the relative scientific output, modern evolutionary theory seems at this juncture an infinitely more successful framework for research than ID. The dissent list was started in 2001, if I remember correctly, with 100 signatories. 5 years, 100 "scientists", and what is their scientific output in ID-supporting research?
Comment by Andrea — April 17, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Andrea, I think you are missing jasonng's point
Many scientists who "come out of the closet" to say they support ID do feel their careers are threatened– short term anyway. They are really sticking their necks out. But it's not suicide; they've got a reason for it–they think ID looks like as if it might be right, and that Darwinism has lost it's foothold on reality; and generally they have this idealistic notion that, in science, the truth will come out in the end, though it might not be in the next ten years.
And even if it doesn't come too soon, they have this other idealistic notion that good scientists "go with the facts" or "follow the evidence" even if it's the unpopular thing or risky.
Comment by lilias — April 17, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Andrea, with your inane logic- Isaac Newton would have been denied tenure.
Too long ago for you?
Try this- the inventors of the laser beam and MRI would have been denied tenured, as they're both creationists.
Care to give us examples of major inventions you've come up with? Laser beams are used all the time in thousands of applications and MRI has lead to incredible insight into the field.
Both of these men in your world are non-scientists for some reason.
I'd really like to see your personal credentials, and see if you can match either one of these inventors, as you are clearly putting them down.
I also love how you "warned" Sal. That was funny stuff. Not only that, you warned him on a site you have no control oven then you called him a liar and offered no evidence to support the defamatory claim.
(Sigh)
Comment by thebluesite — April 17, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
By the way, please offer us some evidence that the scientists on the dissent list with DI are NOT scientists. You make it clear you don't think they are truly scientists as you stated:
Please do offer some evidence that any of those listed on the DI's list are "so-called scientists," and again please tell us what major inventions you created yourself…or else maybe you should apologize to the "so-called" scientists as well as the inventor of the laser and MRI.
Comment by thebluesite — April 17, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I should also note- it's obvious that singing DI's list hurts some scientists in some circles. Andrea herself proves this by referring to them all as "so-called scientists" !!
You can bet thousands of others share her narrow view of the world of science, professors, etc.
Comment by thebluesite — April 17, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Andrea:
What you call "narrowly measured" I call an attempt to be objective and even-handed.
There is no need to invent hypotheticals, as it is clear that academia tolerates all kinds of nonsense. Consider the engineering professor who announced his support of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust. Or the British zoologist who uses the mainstream media to peddle the pseudoscientific notion that raising a child in a religious tradition is child abuse. Or the ecologist who advocates designing a drug to sterilize all people so someone else can pick and choose who is allowed to have children. Or the ethnic studies professor who writes, "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." There is room in academia for these views.
So at some point, the tenure decision is akin to a bunch of high school students letting someone else into their clique? A recognition of one's peers' esteem and trust, as the primary criterion, can easily blur into peer pressure and a herd mentality. The problem with your concern is that it would have us abandon the more objective measures of a person's abilities and supplant them with the murky realm of emotions and prejudices. In that case, the basis for tenure decisions would probably need to be made more open and public.
If you insist on a line being drawn that excludes anyone who thinks ID is science, then it becomes an issue of truth in advertising. It is no fair to bring in a candidate and let them pour their heart and soul into the development of their classes and lab, only to find that none of that matters because of some litmus test about belief. If a university or department wants to draw that line, they need to draw it in plain sight and not behind the secrecy of closed doors. They should develop a position statement that explicitly states they will not hire or grant tenure to anyone who thinks ID is science and then publish this statement on their university/department web site. Or do you disagree?
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
BenK,
I really appreciate you stepping in and offering your spot-on synopsis. It nicely shows that any confusion about my blog does not stem from my end. Thanks.
Myers's rationalization has collapsed as a consequence of some critical thinking. What we are thus left with is Andrea's subjective "we don't want to be embarrassed" criterion.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
"I think you answered yourself: since so many people feel that their career is not particularly threatened by signing the DI petition, then it must be that their careers are not particularly threatened by doing so."
Aren't you the person who, in a few posts above, suggested threatening the careers of those who support ID?
"As for "winning" and "losing", that's not how science works. Objectively, judging by the relative scientific output, modern evolutionary theory seems at this juncture an infinitely more successful framework for research than ID."
First you say that's not how it works, then you start tabulating a scoreboard. The real issue here is whether all the research means anything. If Darwinian evolution fails at the fundamental level then billions in research into the origin of complex life under the Darwinian worldview would be wasted.
"The dissent list was started in 2001, if I remember correctly, with 100 signatories. 5 years, 100 "scientists", and what is their scientific output in ID-supporting research?"
Not all of them are biologists and most of them don't engage in ID-specific research as far as I'm aware. If you want to look for research just look on DI's site or ARN.
Comment by jasonng — April 17, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Andrea:
This misses the whole point of my blog. If we assume that Myers is not a crank on this issue of tenure and ID, and that many influential scientists think as he does, the argument you make has been greatly weakened.
If, for example, someone receives funding from the DI and publishes their results in PCID, it means they don't deserve tenure.
As for "where is the science?", I have addressed this issue in several essays on my web site. Here's one example.
Comment by MikeGene — April 17, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
COMPLETELY ABSENT from the 'explanation' from PZ MYERS is an acknowledgement that Beckwith is a PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR, so even if designating 'ID' as a 'third rail' for one's academic career as a scientist were supportable—————I personally find it unsupportable———–it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER as a criterion for tenure for a philosophy professor.
Need I mention that now, and for MOST of the 20th Century, there have been philosophy professors who were self-professed Marxists (most famously Angela Davis, in the University of California system)? And that PLENTY of other 'tinfoil hat' philosophies have been, and presently are, tolerated, even encouraged at philosophy departments??????
Myers once again shows himself unable to even evaluate coherently the situation of Beckwith (if one had nothing but his blog entry to go by, one would take Beckwith for a physical scientist, even a biologist)….
From Francis Beckwith's homepage:
Francis J. Beckwith is a philosopher, specializing in politics, jurisprudence, religion, and applied ethics. He is on the faculty of Baylor University, where he is Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, and Associate Director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies.
————————————————————————–
Seems to me that people who claim that ID is 'merely religion' or 'merely philosophy' should have no problem with a CAREER ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHER being open to it, much less an Associate Professor of Church-State Studies.
Go figure!
Comment by len — April 17, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Quothe Andrea:
"For instance, if Behe were not tenured, I think denying him tenure would be appropriate – his arguments are not only scientifically faulty, but they are contemptuous of scientific practice . . ."
Get real. You are only making yourself look silly with such hyperbolic accusations.
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 17, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
The difference between ID and real science is exemplified nicely by Mike's reference here. With ID, vague intuition, suspicion, personal revelation, and the like (whatever that is, Rock) are the end of the process – because the IDist cannot test an ID-related hypothesis. If an IDist suspects something, (s)he expects that to count as evidence, and assumes quickly the role of martyr when those meanie reviewers don't see things their way.
The role of serendipity and intuition in science is to reveal new testable hypotheses. Mike's wishes that his musings are in any way whatsoever analogous to those he describes on his web page are just that – wishes. Because Mike's suspicions, like all such ID "evidence", utterly fail to lead to testable hypotheses that pertain to design.
To repeat – science involves hypothesize, test, revise. ID amounts to revelation that is free from empirical testing.
Comment by Art — April 17, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
My god! (excuse the expression! Could it cost me tenure??)
Look at Baylor's loss!
(from Beckwith's homepage)
A 2002-03 Research Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions in the Department of Politics at Princeton University, Professor Beckwith currently serves as a member of Princeton's James Madison Society. He has held full-time faculty appointments at Trinity International University (1997-2002), Whittier College (1996-97), and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (1989-96).
A graduate of Fordham University (Ph.D. and M.A. in philosophy), he also holds the Master of Juridical Studies (M.J.S.) degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, where he won a CALI Award for Academic Excellence in Reproductive Control Seminar. His books include (w/ W. L. Craig, J. P. Moreland) To Every One An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview (InterVarsity Press, 2004); Law, Darwinism, & Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); (w/ C. Mosser & P. Owen) The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement (HarperCollins/Zondervan, 2002), finalist for the 2003 Gold Medallion Award in theology and doctrine; Do the Right Thing: Readings in Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy, 2/e (Wadsworth, 2002); (w/ G. P. Koukl) Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Baker, 1998); (w/ L. P. Pojman) The Abortion Controversy 25 Years After Roe v. Wade: A Reader, 2/e (Wadsworth, 1998); (w/ T. Jones) Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination? (Prometheus, 1997); and Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Baker, 1993), winner of the 1994 Cornerstone Magazine ethics book of the year award.
His forthcoming books include (tentative title) Defending Prolife: A Philosophical and Constitutional Case (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Is Statecraft Soulcraft?: Politics and Christianity (InterVarsity 2007)
His articles have been published in a number of academic journals including Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; San Diego Law Review; International Philosophical Quarterly; Nevada Law Journal; Public Affairs Quarterly; Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy; Journal of Law & Religion; American Journal of Jurisprudence; Chapman Law Review; Social Theory & Practice; Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics; Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Christian Bioethics; Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics; Journal of Church & State; Human Life Review; Journal of Social Philosophy; Journal of Libertarian Studies; Journal of Medical Ethics; Logos; The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology; and Philosophia Christi. In 2006, he will publish articles in the Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, and Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly.
Professor Beckwith has also contributed to a number of reference works including Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties (Routledge, forthcoming 2006); Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights & Liberties (Garland, forthcoming 2006); Baker Dictionary of Cults (Baker, forthcoming 2006); Religion: Past and Present, 4/e (English translation of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart) (Brill Academic Publishers, forthcoming 2006); Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World (InterVarsity, 2002); Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics (Oryx, 1999); and Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, 2/e (Thomas Nelson, 1992).
Among the books in which his articles appear as chapters are Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, ed. W. A. Dembski (InterVarsity Press, 2006); Bob Dylan & Philosophy, ed. Carl Porter and Peter Vernezze (Open Court, 2006); What's Wrong?: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics, ed. D. Boonin and G. Oddie (Oxford University Press, 2005); Guide to New Religious Movements 2/e, ed. R. Enroth (InterVarsity Press. 2005); The Rationality of Theism, ed. P. Copan and P. Moser (Routledge, 2003); Bioengagement: Making a Christian Difference Through Bioethics Today, ed. N. Cameron, S. E. Daniels, and B. J. White (Eerdmans, 2000); In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case For God's Action in History, ed. R. D. Geivett and G. Habermas (InterVarsity, 1997); Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 3/e, ed. L. Pojman (Wadsworth, 1996); The Silent Subject: Reflections on the Unborn in American Culture, ed. Brad Stetson (Praeger, 1996); Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues, 9/e, ed. G. McKenna and S. Feingold (McGraw-Hill, 1995); and Faith in Theory and Practice: Essays on Justifying Religious Belief, ed. E. Radcliffe and C. J. White (Open Court, 1993).
Both colleagues and students have recognized him for teaching excellence. In November 2004 he was recognized as a distinguished faculty member by Baylor University`s Mortar Board. The students of Trinity Graduate School (California campus) selected him Professor of the Year for the 1997-98 school year. During his seven years at UNLV he received a 1995 merit award (given by the Multicultural Student Affairs Office of UNLV), a professor of recognition award by the UNLV alumni association (1992), and was a finalist for university-wide and/or college-wide teaching awards in 1996, 1993, 1992, and 1991.
He has presented academic papers, chaired sessions, and offered commentaries at the conferences of a number of professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the American Political Science Association, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the American Bar Association (Science & Technology Section), the Christian Legal Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Academy of Religion, the Southwestern Political Science Association, the University Faculty for Life, and the Conference on Faith and History. He has served on the executive committees of both the Society of Christian Philosophers (1999-2002) and the Evangelical Philosophical Society (1998-2003) as well as on the national board of the University Faculty for Life (1999-present).
In November 2005 Professor Beckwith became President-Elect of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an organization that has over 4,000 members. He is Program Chair for the 2006 national meeting of the ETS, which we will be held in Washington, D.C. with the theme of "Christians in the Public Square." In July 2005 he began a three-year term as a member of the American Philosophical Association's Committee on Philosophy and Law.
He and his wife, Frankie, live in Woodway, Texas.
———————————————————————-
len: yeah, that's some tinfoil hatter!
Comment by len — April 17, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Art:
That is, of course, simply not true. The aim of many of his ID "musings" is to elucidate theoretical propositions which clearly give insight into biological processes. The biological significance is clearly stated. None are highly speculative, that is, not based on current biological knowledge. Many include experimental results which bear on the underlying hypothesis being presented. One can easily put forth a (proto)mathematical model and / or some experiments to test that hypothesis.
Comment by Guts — April 17, 2006 @ 11:53 pm
April 17th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Ohhh boy. One at a time folks.
I am sure they do. The fact is, of the 500 or so signatories of the DI list, can you name any whose careers have been threatened merely for their support of ID?
A whole bunch of you:
I have not advocated that people be denied tenure, or not hired, merely because they support ID. I have stated this clearly. What I said is that a) I personally would not support Behe for tenure right now, based on his opinions about science and his lack of productivity, and b) I would decide case-by-case whether an ID supporter is worth of tenure or hiring. I personally consider advocacy of ID an embarassment and a bad sign for a scientist, worth of close scrutiny, but I would not consider it an absolute show-stopper.
bluesite:
I didn't say that none of the people on the DI list are scientists, only that a large fraction are not, which warrants the use of quotes, in my opinion. Regardless, I am sure there are productive scientists and academics out there who are prominent in their field and believe in all sorts of nutty stuff, from a young Earth to alien abductions to 9/11 conspiracy theories. So what?
Oh, as for Sal's loose standards with quotations, ask him about the quote he made up here on TT, just last week, by juxtaposing an out-of-context sentence from Eric Pianka to an entirely fabricated question from a "journalist".
jasonng
I said science does not work by "winning and losing", but it certainly works by research and publication. That's not "keeping score", it's what science is about. Commissioning opinion polls among the general public and an obsession with the number of "scientists" signing some petiotion are, on the other hand, irrelevant "score-keeping".
I have, and can't find any. You may want to point out some I have missed, though.
Eric Anderson:
Even if you don't want to take Mike's objective measures to grade Behe's performance as a scientist, go read the Kitzmiller transcripts: Behe happily declared that he wouldn't test his hypothesis because that's up to his opponents, and he wouldn't test his opponents' hypotheses because it wouldn't be "fruitful" for him to do so. If that's not contempt for scientific practice, I don't know what else is.
Now, to the more serious discussion:
Not if you miss some important aspect of the issue, it's not. Whether someone is likely to turn into an embarassment, an annoyance or a distraction to a department or his colleagues is a perfectly valid thing to consider in hiring or tenure decisions. Or do you think people were never denied an academic job because they had a fame of being utter jerks?
By all means, and any department who is uncomfortable with people holding those views may well decide not to hire them, or promote them. Would you expect Liberty U to hire Dawkins, if he applied and was the objectively best qualified applicant?
Maybe. There are of course pros and cons either way, like for peer review. It is true that peer pressure and selection fosters conformity, to some extent (it also however breeds the tendency to self-promote and to artificially depict oneself as a ground-breaker and trend-setter), but it seems to me it still beats "objective" measures that do not keep in account things like ethics, interactions with colleagues, outreach activities, general adherence to professional standards, etc.
Again, I didn't say that. But regardless, I am sure PCID would gladly accomodate anonymous or pseudonymous research papers, with the identity of the author to be revealed when the academic climate changes. Imagine that, dozens of outstanding ID research papers showing up on PCID, issue after issue, reprints going around, PIs all over the country getting intrigued and interested about the new approach, starting to cite those papers and apply the same rationale, elbowing each other to join the bandwagon, and before you know it, a veritable tsunami of ID science will… oh sorry, just daydreaming. Seriously.
Yeah yeah, sure, new ideas take time and are often controversial, raw intuition is important and should be nurtured. That's fine. But at least show us something, for Pete's sake. It's been at least 10 years (or 20, or 200, it depends), and we still are waiting for one single lousy ID research paper, something that would make people go: "Ahh, this is what's going to look like…"
Oh, I just saw Len's post:
As I said in a previous post, if that's the case, great for Beckwith, it sure doesn't seem that ID advocacy has hampered his career in terms of publications and recognition. I am sure some other University will snatch him up in a heartbeat, and probably pay him more than Baylor would have as an insider. What's the problem? Why get so upset at Baylor if it's their loss?
Comment by Andrea — April 17, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 12:18 am
None of Mike's "insights" leads to any hypothesis whose testing addresses, empirically and objectively, the existence of teleology or purpose in life or nature. When it comes to design, Mike's assertion is that the utility of his intuition is itself evidence for these things. The assertion is wrong.
Guts, I don't believe you. Not only because it's yet to be done (remember, I'm talking about controlled experimental testing of hypotheses that explicitly ask questions about design), but because I don't think its possible.
Comment by Art — April 18, 2006 @ 12:18 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Art:
In your opinion, of course. I think the assertion is correct.
There is nothing impossible about it. As you yourself admit, teleological concepts, is imminently testable through the tools of molecular biology, physics, and engineering, as is the "hurricane" model of ateleology which you espouse (and defend).
Comment by Guts — April 18, 2006 @ 12:22 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Art,
You are entitled to your own opinions, but I do not recognize your qualifications for passing such judgment. In the past, you have clarified your own notions about testing for design – "meeting Dembski's criteria regarding probability would be good evidence for design." Yet most of your own fellow travelers disagree with you.
While I realize you have this personal vendetta against me (although, I am not special in that regard), and need to vent at any opportune moment, you really need to make some effort to address the topic of this blog. PZ Myers writes, "I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them." Do you agree?
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 12:35 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:37 am
Moi:
Guts:
If this is the acme of ID "science", no IDist here or anywhere should be complaining that it cannot pass peer review. For the ID assertion "it looks that way to Mike (or any IDist)" is refuted easily and categorically by the equally valid statement "it doesn't look that way to Art (or any critic)". Until someone comes up with a way to empirically demonstrate that someone's intuition can be evidence of anything, rather than merely a demonstration of someone's thinking process, it's safe to say that this particular approach to ID is a dead-end.
Put another way – it's an interesting discussion amongst 9th graders (that's when I remember having such), and after a few rounds of drinks (or whatever). But it ain't science. Get over it.
If some assistant professor is hitching his/her cart to this horse, (s)he shouldn't be surprised or angry with the outcome.
Comment by Art — April 18, 2006 @ 12:37 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:41 am
Andrea:
Embarassment, annoyance, distraction "“ all squishy, subjective criteria. Are these criteria typically applied in secret? Is it possible that stereotypes and outside political pressure may come into play?
But as you have just shown, LU is open and honest about their requirements. So perhaps you can return to the one part of my reply that you missed the first time around:
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 12:41 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Art:
The assertions, for example, that high speeds observed in the cell is akin to an unregulated, destructive hurricane or alternatively to high speed trains or other machines moving materials about, and doing other things, are not just intuitions, both can be scientifically compared and experimentally tested. But both statements cannot be entirely true.
Regardless, to bring this back to the topic at hand, many biologists believe things about evolution that they don't think (or don't know how) can generate "respectable research topics", but I doubt any would deny them tenure because of it.
Comment by Guts — April 18, 2006 @ 12:45 am
April 18th, 2006 at 1:11 am
True enough. But, for example, once I get tenure, I'm not about to drop out of research and academics and instead join the lecture circuit (outside of the academic community that pays my salary and expects something in return) "lecturing" about some pseudoscience and politicking to subvert education in my community, state, and country.
Comment by Art — April 18, 2006 @ 1:11 am
April 18th, 2006 at 1:14 am
I had a feeling no one was going to argue we should have denied tenure to the inventors of the laser and the MRI. In Myers world we WOULD HAVE, which means we might not have lasers and the MRI today.
I'd also love to see the list of major inventions created by Myers and the thousands of applications they have (as is the case with lasers certainly, and MRI to a lesser degree in quantity but maybe not overall quality of invention, significance, etc.)
Comment by thebluesite — April 18, 2006 @ 1:14 am
April 18th, 2006 at 1:22 am
Art:
This thread is not about Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 1:22 am
April 18th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Since [sigh] the topic has once again become me, and I am the one who started this blog with a well-defined topic, and I am the one trying to keep a light touch on the moderating of the comments section, I get the last word on this tangent. But, alas, this dumb IDiot will try to bring it back on topic.
I never claimed my views are the acme of ID "science" nor am I complaining about it not passing "peer review." As I have explained before, the key point hinges around Jacob's wisdom:
Any investigation must begin with "a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be" – an idea that "lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe." This "certain idea" or perspective must be gradually and incrementally fleshed out, perhaps first generating subsidiary hypotheses (which, in of themselves, can be worthy contributions to our understanding of the biotic world), and finally crystallizing in a certain clarity that can deliver the logical or experimental reasons to believe. The key is patience. For years, I have been upfront about the fact that I don't expect Art to think as I do nor do I hound him for not doing so. The question is whether someone should be denied tenure when they excel according to the conventional, objective standards of tenure, but also explore "a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe." Is there a reason critics don't want to address this issue?
Not refuted "“ just balanced. What we then have are two different perspectives on the same thing. Is the solution to kick one perspective out of academia because others might be embarrassed by it? How much of this embarrassment is due to stereotype, as the reliance on stereotypes is reality that has been proven to exist thanks to the internet and the scientist critics?
Are we talking about magic bullet tests or special design-o-meters? This is not as easy as Art makes it seem. At what point was his non-teleological perspective on life's origin empirically demonstrated? Or consider that Art thinks that Fox's protocells qualify as life, yet his "evidence" amounted to a "looks like" argument that was simply a demonstration of his own thinking process. This is demonstrated by the fact that he's pretty much alone out there with that view. Yet I would not deny him tenure because of this.
Apart from the snide ad hominems, readers of this thread can all see the very first reply I offered "“ "I have made it clear in the past that I do not think ID is science." As many can see, some critics pass judgment on positions they don't even understand, choosing to read between the lines rather than the lines. Are tenure decisions to be made with such an approach?
That misses the point. The "outcome" is not the issue, as the assistant professor's output can be objectively measured during conventional tenure review. Yet what we see here is that this doesn't matter – it's the litmus test of belief, where belief that ID is science is sufficient for kicking you out of academia. It's so bad that Andrea gives such people one outlet "“ publish anonymous or pseudonymous research papers in an obscure internet journal and hope no one catches you at any point along the process. Of course, does this mean the DI has to create a "front agency" to get the grant money into the hands of these people?
PZ Myers writes, "I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. " Is there a reason our critics want to talk about everything but this?
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 1:23 am
April 18th, 2006 at 8:36 am
I am shocked – SHOCKED – that personal and political issues play a role in tenure and hiring decisions!!! Mike, man, what planet are you from?
Of course they do, and are kept in consideration together with a lot of different issues, including the dry, quantifiable producivity criteria you seem to believe should be the exclusive measure of an academic's worth. Look, of course there is plenty of room for abuse, and if the abuse is systematic and unrelated to ability (e.g. bias against women or minorities), it sure should be corrected.
But in the case of ID, a very good argument can be made that it is related to work ability and performance, not just based on mere statistical correlation, but from a deeper, philosophical and methodological standpoint. If one supports the idea that science should include supernatural explanations, and astrology is a legitimate science, I would question their competence and understanding of the scientific process. If someone applied for a job in my department and said they do not want to either test their own models, because they are already convinced they are right, or test their opponents', because it's "fruitless", I would humbly suggest they go look for a different line of work, because science is all about testing hypotheses, yours AND others', even when you already think you know what the outcome of the test will be.
Now, I realize there are as many forms of ID as ID advocates, and some are more whacky than others, and that's why I said I personally would consider on a case-by-case basis what impact one's views of science, ID and existing evidence will likely have on their career and on the institution/department. Is that outrageous?
PZ says that if one thinks ID is science, he wouldn't want them in his department. Given the current status of ID, I'd say that is reasonable, even if I may disagree in certain instances about the final decision. You seem to agree that ID is not, nor is close to be, science, either, and therefore that whoever asserts otherwise is, for some reason, drawing a false conclusion about the nature of science and of ID. I don't see why being confused about what science is should NOT be a factor to consider when hiring or promoting a scientist.
I did nothing of the sort. I think ID advocates should just go ahead and submit their papers, if they have any. What I said is that the lame excuse that these papers cannot be published because of censorship has no legs, since there are simple ways to go around that. Indeed, supposedly that was PCID was for, before it floundered publishing book reviewes, rehashed papers from ID notables, and assorted junk. As for funding, the DI should not "front" anything. They already wasted millions in supporting political activities – if ID is science, they should put their own money (and that of wealthy donors) where their mouth is.
Comment by Andrea — April 18, 2006 @ 8:36 am
April 18th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Andrea,
I missed this the first time around because I simply skipped to the place where you addressed me:
This is a position that is far more reasonable Myers absolutism. Nevertheless, I'm still left wondering about your criteria. Productivity is something that the conventional tenure process scores. Let's say that this is not an issue, where productivity is commensurate with others in the department. That leaves you "opinions about science." That would become an issue if such opinions could be tied to lack of productivity, but if not, then why are "opinions about science" relevant? They don't seem to have any consequence on the candidates ability to produce science.
Furthermore, what do you mean by "advocacy of ID?" Myers defines it to be nothing more than someone claiming that ID 'theory' is science. Is that sufficient "advocacy" for you?
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 8:43 am
April 18th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Given that tenure significantly shapes the world that is described, it is helpful for people to realize the extent to which politics shapes the direction of the objective inquiry. Because of the tremendous influence and power of tenure decisions, its political dimension needs to be studied and brought into the full light of day.
So you have a system where there is "plenty of room for abuse" and it makes its decisions behind the secrecy of a closed door. How does this differ from a "good ol' boys" club? If we place major emphasis on "the dry, quantifiable producivity criteria," we don't have to worry too much about this. But every attempt to chip away at this and replace it with squishy subjective criteria undercuts the public's faith in academia. I've long said that many critics of ID pose a greater threat to science and academia than any ID proponent.
Anyway, from the get-go, the issue is not "ability" as we are assuming that someone can pass the conventional criteria of tenure. You are then left with the raw use of politics to shape what is studied. Does such an abuse really have to be systematic to be corrected? At what point does it become systematic?
As for bias against women or minorities, this was first detected by the absence of women or minorities in tenure positions. To get this issue off the ground, perhaps a demographic study is in order. Many of those who decide tenure believe that ID = religion or ID = the Religious Right. Might these beliefs be significant? If we measured the political, ideological, and metaphysical diversity of those in academia, would we see a broad representation or a significant degree of homogeneity?
You have yet to come to terms with the essence of the argument. It is this very philosophical argument that is being challenged. The tenure process already has built in mechanisms to determine "work ability and performance"! Let me simply repeat BenK's synopsis:
Finally, you write:
No. But what is concerning is the way come across as being willing to downplay a man's track record of success and ability (as determined by the tenure decision process) while propping up the squishy subjective elements of group behavior. You write:
His position is not reasonable, as the rationalization for it has collapsed. There is, of course, any easy way to demonstrate PZ's position as being unreasonable. How? Let's have him advocate for this position in his department and his school. Let's see the official college policy, as announced on their university/department web page, that announces: "We will not hire nor grant tenure to anyone who thinks ID is science." If the position is reasonable, it will be there.
Comment by MikeGene — April 18, 2006 @ 9:40 am
April 18th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Bigotry is never reasonable. PZ Myers is a bigot.
Comment by jazzraptor — April 18, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
So…I take it there isn't an appeals process? Or…Myers' statement would be grounds for an appeal?
Comment by Bilbo — April 18, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Mike, don't play Alice in Wonderland. All group human activities are to some (large) extent "political" (in the larger meaning of the term), and of course there is always "plenty or room for abuse" in activities that occur behind closed doors, for confidentiality or other reasons(also, the fact that there is room for abuse does not necessarily mean abuse exists or is widespread).
People have of course all the rights to examine and express their concerns about academic bias, but the same bias exists wherever decisions of this kind are made, such as corporate headquarters, hospitals, political offices, churches etc. These strident claims about bias in the academic environment are just bizarre, when the kind of bias which affects who gets selected by "the system" to climb the political office ladder is very arguably of much larger social consequence, and the type of bias existing in the medical profession, or in churches, of much larger personal consequence.
To insinuate that the academic environment is an exceptional cesspool of political bias and ideological corruption may make for good PR for the DI or Faux News, but it's plain nonsense, and I suspect you know it.
Incidentally, I also note that people on this very site just recently were seriously arguing for the censoring and firing of an objectively very successful tenured academic based on the perceived politically and socially unacceptable nature of some of his public comments, which were not even directly related to science. To turn around now and claim that information not strictly related to one's productivity should in fact be ignored in tenure decisions to ostensibly prevent "political bias" sounds at the very least disingenuous.
As I said, papers published and patents obtained are not the only valid parameters to judge a scientist's performance and competence. In a predominantly undergraduate institution like PZ's, for instance, the faculty may reasonably want and seek to ensure their institutional educational goals are fulfilled with competence. Teaching students that astrology is a legitimate science, to give a relevant example, provides a clearly distorted view of science and is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of scientists, but there is no way to objectively measure that using citation indexes and such, and one must rely on "squishy", subjective judgement instead.
Finally, I think you all are misinterpreting, or oversimplifying, what PZ said. To state
is not the same as advocating an institutional litmus test against ID. There's a huge difference, and as a tenure academic eligible to serve on tenure committees, PZ has all the rights – indeed, one may argue, the professional duty – to use parameters that in his opinion appropriately reflect a candidate's attitudes about science and scientific evidence as a meter to judge their suitability for tenure. He will express his concerns to the tenure committee, other members will be free to disagree and express their own opinions, people will argue, and people will vote. That's how it works, and believe me, I wouldn't exchange that for a bean-counting computer.
Bilbo:
what appeal? Certainly not by Beckwith, since PZ had nothing to do with his tenure. Are you talking about a hypothetical candidate
Comment by Andrea — April 18, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Bilbo,
Alas, there's quite a bit of variation and even a tad of obscurantism about the tenure process. For a fair overview look here:
http://www.apa.org/apags/profdev/abttenure.html
In some universities a psychology professor wouldn't have ANY say in the tenure/nontenure decision on a PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR. But evidently such things happen at Baylor…..
Comment by len — April 18, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
But to follow up: my main point is: a BIOLOGY PROFESSOR isn't competent to judge what is mainstream in PHILOSOPHY (and vice versa of course). But then again, hubris sometimes makes us imagine we are competent in ALL FIELDS…..
And, despite Andrea's artful presentation, Myers isn't MERELY saying that he wouldn't vote for someone like Beckwith. Myers is saying that Beckwith is an adherent of a '"crackpot" idea, a member of the " tinfoil hat brigade", and—oh yeah!—–"a fool[]" etc. It's over-the-top character assassination time, with the tenure decision merely supplying the occasion/excuse for it…….
But then this is so de rigeur on the Internet on this subject, that one barely notices……
Comment by len — April 18, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
April 18th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Just as a sort-of-related side comment: Is the question, "Can design be detected?" a proper question to ask of or regarding science? Is the word "Design" without any scientific meaning or applicability? Suppose PZ Myers and his troubadors are right, and ID as it is now is "tin foil hat"-worthy (one-adjective). Well, does that mean that the attempt to scientifically characterize and perhaps detect Design is doomed to no greater worthiness, just by its nature? Rather than foaming at the mouth whenever "Design" is mentioned, wouldn't it be more scientific and objective of ID Critics to at least sometimes attempt to come up with some ideas as to what determines "Design", and how it might be detected? Or are they really that fearful of the potential metaphysical implications if they should open that door even just the teeniest bit?
Comment by Douglas — April 18, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
April 19th, 2006 at 8:28 am
BenK writes:
"At no point in this article is it assumed that ID is, in fact, science."
So IS ID 'science'?
Comment by derwood — April 19, 2006 @ 8:28 am
April 19th, 2006 at 8:30 am
bilbo:
"Just curious"¦Is there an appeal process? And would Myers' statement provide grounds for an appeal? "
Yes, there are appeals (at least at my university), and Myer's comments would only be grounds for such if one were denied tenure at his university and he was ont he P&T committee.
Only makes sense.
Comment by derwood — April 19, 2006 @ 8:30 am
April 19th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Len:
"But then again, hubris sometimes makes us imagine we are competent in ALL FIELDS"¦.."
And that is true for some of us moreso than others, especially in folks, at least so it seems, with law, engineering or mathematics backgrounds.
Comment by derwood — April 19, 2006 @ 8:44 am
April 19th, 2006 at 11:48 am
I have a question: is it legal to tie career advancement opportunities to religious criteria? I mean, the Dover ruling classifies ID very clearly as religion based on the opinions of the plaintiffs' "expert witnesses." Thus it seems to me that tying an applicant's position on ID to hiring and advancement in academia would clearly constitute a religious test (denial based specifically on religious views), and would be unconstitutional.
Comment by Joy — April 19, 2006 @ 11:48 am
April 19th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
It's worth pointing out here that logic and math are universal – they apply to everything and define what's coherent.
Comment by Deuce — April 19, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
April 19th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Derwood writes:
So IS ID 'science'?
a) – Are you interested in telic ideas or are you here trolling?
b) – This question is right off the topic. MikeGene isn't discussing the proper labelling of ID in this thread.
c) – The question itself is probably meaningless, or at the very least a purely social one.
Comment by BenK — April 19, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
April 19th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Andrea,
You are arguing against two straw men. I am not all Alice in Wonderland about this. The tenure process is designed to measure one's "ability to do their job." A junior faculty member could acquire a reputation as an outstanding teacher and researcher because of countless hours of hard work and devotion. Then along comes PZ Myers, with his own personal agenda, closing his eyes to all this and focusing on a single variable "“ a belief that does not negatively impact on the faculty member's ability to do their job. This is an issue larger than ID. You might want to consider a department using a litmus test concerning adherence to some runaway post-modernism.
A man or women should be judged by their accomplishments, not because of some high-school like clique mentality. Ken Miller write, "My colleagues do their best to be open, fair-minded, and tolerant. They practice the wonderful virtues of free inquiry and free expression." If academia cannot live up to these virtues, it does not deserve a reputation of living up to these virtues.
Second, I did not insinuate that the academic environment is an exceptional cesspool of political bias and ideological corruption, so let's stick to reality. You have acknowledged the political dimension to the tenure process. So did Ed Brayton and PZ Myers. The cat is out of the bag. So instead of trying to put the cat back in the bag with the melodramatic victim role, we need to explore this political dimension and explore the plausible implications. That would, after all, be the scientific thing to do.
As for misinterpreting or oversimplifying what PZ said, there is no evidence that I am doing this. PZ did not say anything about teaching ID as legitimate science to undergraduate students. The criterion was simply this "“ someone who claims ID is science. And the context? A justification for denying tenure to Beckwith, who, as far as I know, is not in any science classroom teaching ID as legitimate science. Thus far, you have offered nothing to defend the PZ posture other than appealing to squishy subjective criteria, including fragile, delicate scientists being embarrassed by someone in their department.
Finally, let's end with this, as it gets to the heart of the problem:
And all this voting and arguing is done in secret. What's to keep this argument from becoming an opportunity for the department to grandstand on the generic issue of ID or the DI? What is to keep an experienced bully like PZ Myers from turning a vote for the candidate into a vote against science? We know that many in academia rely on stereotypes when it comes to ID, so how do we know that those stereotypes were not involved in the arguments?
Since the tenure decision is made in secret, you are asking for trust. You are asking that others adopt a faith-based approach. Do the actions of Baylor or the words of Myers serve to earn that trust? Ask people who are not in the bubble.
Comment by MikeGene — April 19, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
April 19th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
BenK:
I'd say he is trolling and is therefore banned from this thread.
Comment by MikeGene — April 19, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Yikes, if that's not a litmus test, it's hard to imagine what a real litmus test would look like! Does PZ need to install a trapdoor in his floor and a hidden button on his desk as well?
Comment by Deuce — April 20, 2006 @ 8:32 am
April 20th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Do you guys really see no difference between an academic saying (very publicly, and well within a faculty's prerogative) "I would not give tenure to a supporter of ID, because I believe it's bogus and a clear sign of scientific ignorance", an institutional litmus test "No ID supporters need apply", and a behind-close-doors conspiracy, that lets ID advocates bust their butts for years without a word from any of their colleagues, waiting to secretly sack them at tenure review? I find it hard to believe.
And as I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere – you will agree that flat-earthers and holocaust deniers have no place in geology or history departments, regardless of their scholarly output. For PZ, thinking ID is science puts one beyond the line, for me, it most likely does but I am willing to consider case-by-case, for Mike it does not (although he himself thinks it's a position that is completely wrong).
It all would change, of course, if ID proved itself to be a proficuous scientific framework. In retrospect, then, Mike would look like a far-seeing groundbreaker, I a timid conformist and PZ a reactionary nutjob. But ID ain't there yet – not even close. If you ask me, ID advocates should just stop whining and asking for a "get out of tenure jail free" card (or "peer review jail", or whatever this week's complaint is), and try to get some science done. You won't believe what real hard work can do for low morale.
Comment by Andrea — April 20, 2006 @ 9:58 am
April 20th, 2006 at 11:11 am
The only difference I see between those two scenarios is the number of people saying that IDers need not apply. I don't see where an academic "very publicly" announcing his litmus test makes it not a litmus test. I also don't see how that position is his prerogative (It's his prerogative to say it, I suppose, but not to practice it – however, his saying it is a good indication that he practices it too, or would practice it given the chance).
A conspiracy implies multiple people secretly plotting amongst themselves to do something underhanded, which isn't what anyone has suggested here. However, if the majority of a tenure board individually thought like PZ, but didn't come out and say so like him, you'd have a similar effect.
This is a red herring. The fact is, the issue never comes up in the case of flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. Why? Because those positions preclude such people from being able to produce the scholarly output needed for tenure in the first place. There's a reason that an IDer getting blocked by a litmus test is a realistic scenario, but it happening to an flat-earth geology professor is not. However, if a geologist were actually able to produce the scholarly work needed for tenure, but held it as his belief that the earth was flat, then yes, I would consider it discrimination to block him on that count. If he were able to somehow compartmentalize his belief such that it didn't keep him from performing the scientific research he needed to do (perhaps he's a methodological round-earther or something), then he shouldn't be blocked based just on the belief. And how would you judge whether he had successfully compartmentalized his belief? You wouldn't (or shouldn't) because it's not your business. Instead, you'd let his work speak for itself. If his performance is good, then he must have done whatever was necessary to perform well.
Now, you bring up an interesting point with the Holocaust deniers. The fact is, there are tenured Holocaust deniers in our Universities – they are just practically or actually non-existent in our history departments. However, Francis Beckwith isn't in any science department. He's a philosopher, with a focus on philosophy of law. What PZ appears to have suggested is a universal litmus test of "acceptable thought" to be applied across departments (one that includes ID support, but apparently not support of infanticide for the sake of one's economic well-being). Note also that Beckwith isn't exactly an "ID supporter" either. He's said that he doesn't find the IDists' case in biology very persausive, though he's interested in the cosmological argument from fine-tuning.
Comment by Deuce — April 20, 2006 @ 11:11 am
April 20th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Sorry, I was under the impression that Myers was a faculty member at Baylor, who had voted against Beckwith having tenure. I guess I'm not following this very closely. But now Len has raised another issue I wasn't aware of: Do faculty members from one department get to vote on whether someone in a different department gets tenure, at Baylor? Elsewhere? That sounds rather absurd to me. Somebody tell me it isn't so.
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
This whole discussion is slightly strange. Apart from PZ Myers how many people are familiar with the tenure process? You can't just deny someone tenure based on what they believe. This is true no matter how biased the committee is against someone. Universities have strict academic codes which prescribe exactly how the tenure process proceeds and there are multiple reviews.
Generally tenure involves a detailed review of the following;
(i) Teaching
(ii) Peer reviewed publications
(iiii) Outside letters of recommendation from experts in the field
(iv) Evaluation of an individual's service
Normally (i), (ii) and (iv) are assigned a weight – e.g., 45% teaching, 45% scholarly and 10% service.
If a person going up for tenure is a good teacher – evidenced mainly by a consistently good record of teaching evaluations and has a good publication record together with decent outside recommednation letters then they could believe that the moon is made of green cheese and it would be hard to deny tenure. Exceptions include, e.g.,
1. He or she teaches green cheese lunar theory as fact in classes. Usually this would show up in evals.
2. He or she publishes (or tries to publish) green cheese lunar theories. Publications, if any, would be in lunatic edge journals and this would be legitimate grounds for denying tenure.
T&P committees certainly can influence marginal cases either way and this might be a result of bias. But it is very hard to deny tenure to deserving cases and "deserving" can usually be determined objectively. Also, in most cases a candidate has the right to insist that a certain number of outside reviewers be from a list that he or she supplies.
Of course abuses exist but in most cases alleged abuses involve weak candidates claiming some sort of bias. Now let's look at Beckwith's publication record at Baylor from isiknowledge.com
Beckwith FJ
The cube and the cathedral: Europe, America, and politics without God.
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 48 (1): 218-220 WIN 2006
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
2. Beckwith FJ
Religion in the liberal polity.
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 47 (4): 866-869 FAL 2005
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
3. Beckwith FJ
Genetics, theology, and ethics: An interdisciplinary conversation.
THEOLOGY TODAY 62 (3): 450-451 OCT 2005
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
4. Beckwith FJ
Encyclopedia of religious freedom.
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 47 (3): 651-652 SUM 2005
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
5. Beckwith FJ
The supreme court and religion in American life, vol, I: Odyssey of the religion clauses.
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 47 (1): 182-185 WIN 2005
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
6. Beckwith FJ
The supreme court and religion in American life, vol, II from "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples".
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 47 (1): 182-185 WIN 2005
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
7. Beckwith FJ
Of souls, selves, and cerebrums: a reply to Himma
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 31 (1): 56-60 JAN 1 2005
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
8. Beckwith FJ
When you come to a fork in the road, take it?: Abortion, personhood, and the jurisprudence of neutrality
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 45 (3): 485-497 SUM 2003
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
9. Beckwith FJ
Three approaches to abortion: A thoughtful and compassionate guide to today's most controversial issue.
JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE 45 (4): 835-836 FAL 2003
Times Cited: 0
Context Sensitive Links
10. Beckwith FJ
Science and religion twenty years after McLean v Arkansas: Evolution, public education, and the new challenge of intelligent design
HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 26 (2): 455-499 SPR 2003
Times Cited: 2
He's hardly widely cited. Those above are from Baylor. In total I can only find 16 papers in the journals covered by the ISI web of knowledge. Even granting him the 28 scholarly articles that freerepublic ascribes to him (I suspect the rest are book chapters which carry much less weight than peer reviewed articles in journals) and the 11 books he's supposed to have published, he's not a strong scholar based on the little impact he's had. It would be useful to evaluate his books – is he sole author? Who published them, etc? For example
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_sf_b_as/103-6332670-4767058
Baker books hardly counts as a scholarly publisher.
With his poor citation record – i.e., he has had little impact I suspect that Beckwith's case is particularly weak. Given Baylor's good judgement in booting Dembski I can only conclude that they are right to dump Beckwith.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Bilbo,
Normally there is one member of the committee from outside the department to ensure that due process is followed. It is an eminently sensible approach. In most cases the candidate has to approve that external member.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Posted by ethel_merganser:
This whole discussion is slightly strange. Apart from PZ Myers how many people are familiar with the tenure process? You can't just deny someone tenure based on what they believe. This is true no matter how biased the committee is against someone. Universities have strict academic codes which prescribe exactly how the tenure process proceeds and there are multiple reviews.
Generally tenure involves a detailed review of the following;
(i) Teaching
(ii) Peer reviewed publications
(iiii) Outside letters of recommendation from experts in the field
(iv) Evaluation of an individual's service
——————————————————————————
I agree: this discussion is MUCH MUCH more than slightly strange: PZ MYERS, the one that Merganser says is 'familiar with the tenure process', if you read his blog entries on the subject, utterly disregards in HIS discussion of Beckwith's bid for tenure ANY mention WHATSOEVER of:
(i) Teaching
(ii) Peer reviewed publications
(iiii) Outside letters of recommendation from experts in the field
(iv) Evaluation of an individual's service
(ie the things that merganser rightly cites as determinative). INSTEAD Myers cites the 'reasoning' of Dr Jim Patton and gives that reasoning via quotation in his (Myers' blog):
Dr Jim Patton, who clearly states a legitimate reason for kicking Beckwith out (warning: Free Republic link):
When tenure time approached, the anti-Sloan [Sloan was the former Baylor president who had hired Dembski and Beckwith] interim president, William Underwood, appointed psychology professor Jim Patton, the chair of the anti-Sloan faculty senate, to Mr. Beckwith's tenure committee. In an e-mail message about another faculty member shown to WORLD, Mr. Patton wrote, "I clearly do not think highly of anyone who claims ID theory is science."
[here we go back to Myers]
I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, I will vote against them. If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I'd rather not have crackpots promoted. Beckwith may be a nice fellow with a commendable publication record, but when it gets right down to it, his untenable position on intelligent design puts him smack in the middle of the tinfoil hat brigade. And that position on ID is a focus of many of his publications, so it is certainly a legitimate criterion for judging him.
—————————————————————————–
Anyone see anything about service there? Teaching? Outside letters of recommendation? Peer reviewed publications?? Well, Myers admits that Beckwith 'may' [have] a commendable publication record, but this has NOTHING to do with Myers' remote and granted entirely theoretical thumbs down on Beckwith.
It's all: this guy is open to Intelligent Design! So it's the door!
Strange discussion indeed! merganser doesn't even seem to have read Myers' blog entry. If she HAD, she would certainly not have posted here as she did.
Furthermore let's go back to what Myers's entry says about Professor Jim Patton:
interim president, William Underwood, appointed psychology professor Jim Patton, the chair of the anti-Sloan faculty senate, to Mr. Beckwith's tenure committee. In an e-mail message about another faculty member shown to WORLD, Mr. Patton wrote, "I clearly do not think highly of anyone who claims ID theory is science."
————————–
Anyone see ANYTHING in that about:
1) service? (I sure don't!)
2) teaching (I sure don't)
3) peer reviewed publications (I sure don't!)
4) outside letters of recommendation? (I sure don't!)
———————————–
Evidently merganser, instead of actually reading Myers' blog, is making it up as she goes along……….
And since Patton is the 'chair of the anti-Sloan faculty sentate' it's a fair guess that Beckwith didn't WANT to be saddled with him on his committee.
Comment by len — April 20, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Len,
You are the one with a reading disability. There can hardly be any question that P Z Myers is familiar with the tenure process since he's a tenured professor. You may note that I didn't say that I agreed with his reasons for denying tenure which would hold no water unless Beckwith was promoting ID as science in classes or representing ID as science (which it ain't) in publications – see lunar green cheese theory. In fact, the point of my post was that if Beckwith had a strong case for tenure based on the criteria I laid out then it would be hard to deny him tenure. His scholarly record is very weak ergo he is denied tenure.
But, Len, I guess you're just another shrill ID conspiracy theorist. As for PZ – his comments were either ill thought out or designed to infuriate the likes of yourself. Certainly they weren't helpful.
As for your "fair guesses" they really aren't worth the pixels they occupy on the screen. Why not stick to the facts and do a bit of research on Beckwith's record? If you can.
Hugs,
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Posted by ethel_merganser:
Len,
You are the one with a reading disability.
—————————————-
Uh, I didn't say you had a reading disability. I observed that there is a TOTAL DISCONNECT between the reasoning supplied by Myers in his blog for why tenure rightly should be denied to Beckwith and YOUR disquisition on the general outline of the criteria of the tenure process.
HE (Myers) is saying NOTHING about:
1) Beckwith's teaching.
2) Beckwith's community service.
3) Beckwith's outside letters of recommendation.
4) Beckwith's peer reviewed publications (other than to concede that Beckwith 'may' have a 'commendable publication record.
What is the sense in discussing Myers' blog entry on Beckwith if people, ostensibly defending Myers on this point, bring in COMPLETELY EXTRAENOUS ARGUMENTS?!? Arguments that Myers himself is not making AT ALL??!?
Comment by len — April 20, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Len,
Your premise is that I am defending Myers which is why you missed my point. Let me spell it out more clearly. I'm not defending Myers- his post is one reason why I find this thread strange. That is, is Myers the only one here who is obviously familiar with how tenure works? Because, if he is then that might explain why no one discussed the acutal criteria for tenure asoposed to Myers's comments. That is, people seem to be jumping to the conclusion that because Myers is famliar with the tenure process then his post accurately reflects how it works – it doesn't.
Patton is right to be suspect of someone who thinks ID is science but he can't legitimately deny tenure on that basis alone. In some of his comments later in his thread Myers revises his post to reflect this a bit but his original comments are odd as are the responses to them. Proving Myers wrong – or right – is irrelevant to the issue of Beckwith's tenure. Are ID proponents so desperate that they mistake proving Myers wrong for a victory for ID?
Put differently, Myers knows no more than anyone else – apart from the various Baylor committees and administrators – about Baylor's reasons for denying Beckwith tenure and so his opinions are worthless as a basis for judging the correctness – or not – of Baylor's decision. But if Sloan loaded the deck with faculty purely because they were pro-ID as opposed to being scholars in their own right (e.g., Dembski) then they are right to look carefully at quality of the academic output of those hires.
Let me give you another example; assume someone comes along who tries to disprove relativity and replace it with another theory. If they succeed within the 6 years allocated to make a case for tenure they get tenure and a Nobel prize. If they succeed after 8 years they do so after having been denied tenure wherever they were. They will still get the Nobel. That's how the system works. Same thing with ID. If you can prove it within your 6 years you get the job.
Is it clear yet?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Posted by Ethel:
Is it clear yet?
——————-
Clear as mud.
But since you really aren't interested in what Myers' blog actually says, but are only interesting in extraneous arguments, I'll have to let it go….Tata!
Comment by len — April 20, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Len,
You're right – I'm not that interested in what Myers said. He's one giuy at a fairly backwater school and his views are not reflective of how the tenure process works. If you bother to raed what Mike Gene asked at the beginning then it is, essentially, the question that my post attempted to answer.
But, Len, I understand – far be it from me to expect you to apprach the issue logically when you can let your emotions vent against a Darwinian!
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Mike,
In other words, an attempt to get a ID-based research program off the ground is reason, according to Myers, for kicking you out of academia.
In any proposal you have to explain – in detail – what you will do and what evidence would find to support or disprove your hypothesis. If you could write a proposal to test ID then, while there would be some opposition, in principle it would be funadable. But thta's the hard part – ID is untestable which is what makes it "not science."
I say "some opposition" because it is extremely hard to get anything funded and there are always biased and hostile reviewers. You jst have to persist.
Unfortunately, ID is liking submitting a proposal to the National Science Foundation that has as the title "Why Science and the Scientific Method is Wrong." It would be a bit hard to get funding.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Mike,
(quote inserted)
In any proposal you have to explain – in detail – what you will do and what evidence would find to support or disprove your hypothesis. If you could write a proposal to test ID then, while there would be some opposition, in principle it would be funadable. But thta's the hard part – ID is untestable which is what makes it "not science."
I say "some opposition" because it is extremely hard to get anything funded and there are always biased and hostile reviewers. You jst have to persist.
Unfortunately, ID is liking submitting a proposal to the National Science Foundation that has as the title "Why Science and the Scientific Method is Wrong." It would be a bit hard to get funding.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 20, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Posted by Ethel:
Len,
You're right – I'm not that interested in what Myers said.
———————————————————-
That's what I thought.
Since the original blog is called 'PZ MYERS ON TENURE AND ID' that puts you are a considerable disadvantage here…….since "what Myers said" is the very topic of this thread.
Comment by len — April 20, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Ethel,
I have to agree with Len in that your first posting was confusing. But it does help get us back on topic. You wrote:
Compare to what I wrote:
Okay, but then you wrote:
Great. But PZ Myers wrote:
So there is at least one professor willing to deny someone tenure based on what they believe.
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
April 20th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Ethel:
Since your quote is lacking the context, it misses the point of my argument. The context?
Y'see, if Myers views are not atypical, then I am afraid you have vastly underestimated the "opposition." In such a situation, the proposal you envision works only to paint a large, red "ID" on the author's lab coat and, according to people like Myers, that alone is sufficient for booting someone out of the clique. Perhaps it would help if we couldn't scientifically survey the attitudes of those in academia when it comes to "Intelligent Design" to more objectively gauge the essence of the opposition. After all, according to this advocacy article in the scientific literature – "The age of nonpartisan science is gone."
Hmmm. What might that mean behind those closed doors?
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
April 21st, 2006 at 12:16 am
"I believe ID is, or might be, scientific."
"Okay, that's it – you're denied tenure. Go find another job, loser. Now, when will ID produce peer-reviewed science?"
Comment by Douglas — April 21, 2006 @ 12:16 am
April 21st, 2006 at 12:56 am
Let me just see if I understand this correctly.
Andrea: Voting against someone based on their beliefs about ID is okay. But ID supporters wouldn't have to worry about this if they would just publish some articles on ID.
Ethel: Voting against someone because of their beliefs about ID is not okay. But if an ID supporter publishes an article about ID, then he's fair game.
Did I miss anything?
Comment by Krauze — April 21, 2006 @ 12:56 am
April 21st, 2006 at 3:45 am
From my experience on tenure committees, I think Dr. Myers is in the mainstream.
Assume this hypothetical: We have a lawyer teaching at a law school, in a tenure-track position. The lawyer writes a dozen articles, published in various respected law journals (which have different review standards from science journals, by the way, but which could count toward tenure for a law professor). In those articles he urges public school administrators to put intelligent design into their science curricula because, he argues, past Supreme Court decisions say that such an issue is acceptable.
Especially when some school district does what the professor urges, and is slapped down in an expensive lawsuit because the law professor's claims are found to be exactly at odds with what the law is, how should the tenure committee weigh those law review articles when it comes time to evaluate whether the professor has demonstrated the ability to do research and publish law review articles that advance the profession?
How would it change if another member of the tenure committee observes that, had this professor been the lawyer advising the school district in the case, instead of a mere law journal author, he might be subject to malpractice or state bar sanctions for his erroneous advocacy that cost the client a few millions of dollars?
Most universities would consider it a bad sign if the professor were in error in his profession, at least for tenure decisions. If the professor clings to the error, doesn't a university have a duty to evaluate it as clinging to error, in the tenure review process?
Comment by edarrell — April 21, 2006 @ 3:45 am
April 21st, 2006 at 3:52 am
No, Myers did not say he'd refuse to review serious science in pursuit if ID — I suspect he'd be in the front lines of those who would urge scientists to make such inquiry.
What Myers said is, without evidence supporting a belief that ID is science (the status quo), he would not vote to endorse for tenure someone who claimed otherwise.
Academia is not all ivory tower stuff — in my experience, very little of it is (except to some degree some philosophy and theology). Biology, law, business, psychology, and many other disciplines have real-world practice, and professors are expected to make contributions to the body of knowledge that benefits others, in the professor's field.
A professor should be competent in her field. Departures from reality tend to call into question whether the professor is indeed competent, especially when the departures from reality are in the professor's field.
Newton's departures from reality were not in his field, by the way, nor were others relying on them in the real world.
Comment by edarrell — April 21, 2006 @ 3:52 am
April 21st, 2006 at 10:28 am
Mike,
I'll comment on both of your posts here:
I thought it should have been obvious from my original post that I was disagreeing with PZ Myers. I do understand that you listed the criteria for tenure – but you did so (at least it seems to me) as someone not actually familiar with the process. Otherwise why would you have asked if Myers's statements were the general view? No matter what Myers says, and no matter what the biases are you cannot deny someone tenure if they meet the criteria I listed and provided they haven't, e.g., done something criminal.
The problem seems to be that people are holding up P Z Myers as some sort of icon of evolution and, therefore, if he errs then attacking him is somehow promoting ID. Be that as it may, the problem with Myers' statements is that, no matter what he says on his blog, he can't say what he said in a tenure meeting and get away with it. More importantly, you can't say in a recommendation letter to the Dean "This guy should not get promoted because he thinks ID is science." At some point there would be a lawsuit in which such letters would be revealed and it would be disastrous for the University and for Myers personally. For example, sexist comments about women in a T&P meeting could get a full professor fired. The political correctness movement which the right so abhorrs actually protects people's religious beliefs too.
Now, you could say in a T&P letter, "this person is a biologist who prmotes ID as science which has resulted in his outside letters questioning his competence." That sort of thing would fly. If someone had a borderline case then biases can swing it either way but most universities adopt the view that bordeline cases should be denied. But you cannot and do not block someone's tenure just because you don't like what they believe. Of course a conspiracy is possible but if Beckwith brings a suit against Baylor it will be pretty easy to demonstrate that such a conspiracy exists. The reason I listed Beckwith's publications and – more importantly – his citation hits was to show that Beckwith's case is weak to begin with which makes it much easier to ding him. He should be denied tenure in my opinion because his scholarship is weak.
Would Behe get tenure based on his recent stuff? No, not because he believes in ID but because his professional research output has been close to zero. Instead he has been pushing the ID agenda and writing popular accounts of ID that have no scientific merit. You can't dream science up – you have to do actual research and Behe isn't doing that.
Now to your second post:
I understand the context but don't see how it matters since I have already said (or at least implied) that Myers' views are not typical in so far as how proposals are evaluated. I would say up front that most scientists think that ID is religion and not science. But if someone came up with a sensible proposal that could actually test some feature of ID in controlled, reproducible experiments then it would get a hearing.
It is very hard to propose something that goes against current thinking and get it funded. Actually, it is easier to publish in peer reviewed journals than to get funding. So the way to get funding is to do some preliminary work, get that published and then apply for funding based on what you did. One way to do this is to apply for funding to do some non controversial research and then use that funding to go in a new direction. This is perfectly legal and granting agencies actually say so explicitly. So, e.g., Behe could have used his funding and laboratories to pursue some ID research (whatever that might be.) Then he'd have a basis for pursuing a proposal to test ID.
The basic problem with ID is that it is religion and so, as Dembski and Behe and others know it is impossible to propose "ID research" because ID is untestable. As has already been noted ID proponents are backed by lots of money, Behe has had the opportunity to do lab research in pursuit of ID and yet these guys prefer to hound the likes of Pianka and cry foul rather than pursuing research within their remit. they do this because they understand that they have no scientific case. They have money, they have big brains like Dembski and they have actual scientists like Behe but theyhave no evidence and so they resort to politics.
Einstein would not have got funded if he said "I'm Einstein and I know Newton is wrong." He had to come up with something first. So to does the ID community and so too does Dembski. Science is rough and tumble and often unfair but in the end it works well at sifting wheat from chaff. And Dembski is chaff.
Len – the point of the thread is to ask if Myers's views reflect the way that tenure works. They don't. Myers is, to an extent, a self appointed poster child of the anti ID movement – a sort of anti-Behe – so what should matter to you guys is producing evidence for ID not proving Myers wrong. Since the former is impossible it's not surprising that you opt for the latter. If you think I'm wrong and that it is possible, then go ahead and produce some evidence or point to some. Finding holes in some aspect of evolution is not enough.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 21, 2006 @ 10:28 am
April 21st, 2006 at 10:41 am
Krauze,
Yes, you did miss something – to publish an article you need to have something – beyond speculation and opinion – to publish. That's the central point that the ID community is missing. Mike Gene talks about a big red ID marker on someone's lab coat. He fails to understand that Behe is perfectly placed to do some actual research – I'm sure the DI could fund him – that would produce reproducible evidence for ID. That's all it takes.
What other scientific field has advanced through force of propaganda rather than weight of evidence? I can't think of one – so why should ID?
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 21, 2006 @ 10:41 am
April 22nd, 2006 at 11:18 am
Ethel,
My argument was rather straightforward.
1. I quote Myers' position about voting against tenure because a candidate claims ID is science.
2. I quote Myers' justification for this position.
3. I knock down Myers' justification for this position.
4. I thus raise the issue of whether Myers' position is atypical. If it is, it reflects poorly on Myers. If it is not, then we should consider the implications.
Since no one has taken issue with #3, it can conclude that I have successfully discredited Myers' justification. This is significant because many people embrace the same basic logic. For example, even after I have discredited Myers' justification, Ed basically repeats it:
But competency in one's field is easily assessed by the conventional tenure criteria you bring to our attention. If someone is not competent in her field, she will have great difficulty getting grants and publications. So, as far as competency is concerned, there is no need to factor in one's opinion about science and ID.
You also mention Behe, writing "Would Behe get tenure based on his recent stuff? No, not because he believes in ID but because his professional research output has been close to zero." But as you have said, the conventional criteria are sufficient here (BTW, the same point could be made about Richard Dawkins).
So that leaves us with point #4. Your position is that Myers is adopting essentially a crank position and you proceed to uphold the view the vast majority of people serving on a tenure committee would never deny tenure simply because someone believed ID = science.
But the problem is that you have changed the whole direction of the argument. Prior to your entry, the primary critic was Andrea, who argued there was indeed a political dimension to the tenure position and chided me for criticizing this reality. Critics Ed Brayton and PZ Myers also made the same basic point.
So what do we have? Three critics who tell us there is indeed a political dimension to the tenure process and one critic who dismisses the idea.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2006 @ 11:18 am
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Mike,
Thanks for the response. I would certainly agree with you on Dawkins even though I tend to be in almost complete agreement with his views. You have distilled it down to "is there a political aspect" to tenure decisions.
Of course there is such an aspect – as Andrea (or maybe Ed) pointed out it is a human activity and so is subject to such biases. But that is why most reputable universities have an elaborate tenure process to minimize the influence of such bias. For example, T&P committees have an "external member" (from another department) and increasingly there is also an ombudsman sitting on the committee, Even such minor omissions as not having informed a candidate by a certain date that some paperwork was due are duly noted. After the the complete package – which contains teaching evaluations; letters on teaching ability based on direct faculty observation by multiple faculty; copies of papers, proposals, and, if the candidate so wishes, copies of external reviews of papers etc.,; any evidence of service and community activities,; and a letter from the Department Head – goes to the Dean and then to the Provost.
If a candidate has built up a strong case from the first day and can document this with letters generated along the way then it is very difficult to decide a tenure decision purely on political grounds. As I have indicated, otherwise marginal cases can be the most easily affected by political bias (and I suspect this is the case with Beckwith). But, since the default position of of most schools is to to deny tenure if the case is borderline, negative bias in such instances is usually immaterial to the actual outcome. Often, if a case is weak the candidate can try to demonstrate negative bias as a way of reversing the decision. But, generally the origin of the negative bias is precisely the poor scholarship on which the tenure decision is being based. Other factors can come in to; scant regard for safety standards; poor personal hygiene to the point that it offends students; use of foul language in innapropriate settings etc.
Is Myers a crank? I think that's a bit too strong – I think he stated his own opinion of what he would like to happen and would be very surprised and quite disappointed if he expressed that view in an actual T&P meeting. The most extreme example would be a biology professor who was teaching ID, proposing ID research and publishing ID stuff in non professional journals. But in such a case I don't see how the individual would even get to the T&P stage – he or she would be eliminated early on (you can't teach ID in inroductory biology) and if you have no papers in legitimate journals after 3 years you are usually given a terminal one year appointment.
I am not saying that exceptions cannot and do not arise; simply that they are rare. Back to Dawkins – I'd agree with you that Dawkins would not get tenure based on his recent writings. There is a place for people who essentially give up research (post tenure) and devote themselves to other things. But, as the system currently exists, to get to that point you have to achieve tenure based on actual original scholarship rather than through writing popular accounts of science (or whatever).
The difference between Dawkins and Behe is that Behe is writing popular accounts of something that is new and unproven – and generally considered to be "not science" – whereas Dawkins is, for the most part, writing popular accounts or inetrpretations of already accepted research. That is a huge difference.
Physics is full of analogs of ID-ers – essentially cranks who try to disprove relativity etc. Does that mean that a replacement for relativity theory would be rejected by the physics community? Not at all, provided the evidence were presented. The relativity deniers all complain they are not listented to but that's only because they don't have the evidence. All fields of science have their lunatic fringes and all such fringes behave in essentially the same way.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
In case Bilbo is interested in more on the process this is a good source:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:O0kmKUKWs8YJ:www.indiana.edu/~educpc/05.26.doc+tenure++%22primary+committee%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4
Comment by len — April 22, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Prediction: Beckwith finds tenure at another, more prestigious university in the next 6 to 8 years…..
Comment by len — April 22, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:21 pm
ethel,
"Of course there is such an aspect – as Andrea (or maybe Ed) pointed out it is a human activity and so is subject to such biases."
Would the same be true for peer review? Or is that not a "human" activity?
Comment by Douglas — April 22, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Douglas,
The same is true for peer review and much of science is fighting referees who either didn't read your manuscript, don't like the competition from your work or don't like you personally. Generally, if the science is correct then the paper will eventually get accepted and is often improved in the process. This is true even when publishing something that is totally noncontroversial – the argument against it is then; " this is not a sufficient advance." Sometimes you can't win! But, remarkably, the process works fairly well overall.
In selecting outside reviewers for tenure decisions the candidate gets to submit a list of his or her own nominees and a subset of these must (in most universities I know of) be contacted. Part of getting tenure is being succesful at integrating into one's professional community and, if you can't come up with a list of people who would support you for tenure then you don't deserve tenure. The notion of the lone Galileo-type battling a hostile and monolithic scientific community that doesn't recognize your greatness is for the most part a romantic myth.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 22, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Since the how-does-tenure-work? and what-is-Myers-really-saying? aspects of this thread are all but played out, I thought I would give some more exposure to Myers' general worldview via a post of his at Internet Infidels discussion board from about 2 years ago. The following post reposts the thoughts of a certain Vorkosigan and then there is Myers himself substantially agreeing with Vorkosigan:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
ID will win, in the long run. Because its proponents are not hampered by the need to adhere to truth, good faith, and other ethical principles scientists are bound to. When it fails, ID supporters will resort to threats, and after that, violence. We are not looking at some strange social phenomonen of the uneducated, but a full-blown facist movement complete with a cell structure (independent churches), decentralized leadership, backing from powerful right-wing businessmen and wealthy families, intellectual leadership in the form of nationally prominent facists, and of course, the sole goal of suborning the current polity. "ID" does not stand by itself, but is part of a larger movement to destroy American democracy and replace it with a theocratic, facist state.
Did I really just write that, sober?
You'd have to be drunk to write anything else — that's pretty much the way things do stand. I really despair of this country I'm in; it's not just creationism, but Iraq, the irresponsible attitudes towards education and social services, the pervasive anti-intellectualism, smug jingoism…I could go on and on, and get rather depressing.
——————————————————————————-
Last paragraph by Myers and the post is dated May 3rd, 2004.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1577170#post1577170
When your worldview is that grim: 'Intelligent Design' is but a clever creationism and its adherents "will resort to threats, and after that, violence" [the words are Vorkosigan's but Myers is agreeing with him], is there any question why the renunciation of ID is a sine qua non for those who think like Myers? They are the noble warriors against "pervasive anti-intellectualism, smug jingoism" etc. Plus the inevitable incipient theocratic, fascist state……..Holy rhetorical overkill, Batman!
Comment by len — April 22, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:08 am
Ethel,
You make a strong argument in defense of the tenure decision process and I thank you for that. But in the end, tenure decisions go public (and with the internet, very public) and the argument you make boils down to "trust them." Yet that very demand for trust is being undercut by people like Myers and Ed. You liken ID to a crank position. Fine. But in the eyes of many in academia, ID is much more than a crank position. It is viewed as part of a Conspiracy by the Religious Right to destroy science and install a theocracy. ID is likened to Holocaust denial and the Taliban (although the latter accusation may help get ID in Yale). As the highly esteemed scholar, Daniel Dennett, claims, ID represents "The Forces of Darkness." In fact, when Dennett threatens Ruse for being viewed by many as being too close to the Forces of Darkness, Ruse himself replied by saying he already has tenure (read between the lines). Furthermore, articles are being published in the scientific literature that advocate for scientists to become more political. In other words, there are many in academia who react to ID with hostility, reliance on stereotypes, and political activism.
You write, "But that is why most reputable universities have an elaborate tenure process to minimize the influence of such bias." Indeed. Also, concerning Myers, you note, "I think he stated his own opinion of what he would like to happen and would be very surprised and quite disappointed if he expressed that view in an actual T&P meeting." I agree. Then again, Myers didn't tell us how he would go about trying to kick someone out of his college. If someone wanted to accomplish Myers' objective, there are more nuanced ways to trying to convince others on a committee.
In the end, I find your argument rather convincing, but I'm irrelevant in the scheme of things. The tenure people need to think proactively when denying tenure to an apparently qualified ID proponent. How? They should record the meeting(s) and make the transcripts available to the person who has been denied tenure. This would document the extent to which the tenure process went "to minimize the influence of such bias."
When people oppose teaching ID in the public schools, they hold the moral high ground. When people advocate that we deny tenure to professors who think ID is science, they lose the moral high ground.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 10:08 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:25 am
Ethel:
I have no problem with Dawkins' books about evolution. What I am talking about is his anti-religious crusade. First a TV show, next a new book (the God Delusion).
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 10:25 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:12 am
Mike,
Thanks. If someone thinks they have been denied tenure inappropriately they can sue the university and insist that their file be made available for inspection. There are laws that exist in regard to hiring and firing and so it's not a matter of trust but of law as Joy pointed out.
Actually, Beckwith's firing is a huge plus for the ID community because of the publicity it has generated: it would have been even more useful to them had he been fired from a secular school – but I doubt any would have hired him the first place. Actually, the whole problem seems to be that he was hired inapproriately – i.e., because of his ID agenda rather than his abilities.
I have no problem with Dawkins or Dembski or anyone else doing TV shows or writing popular books. That's simply free speech.
But what about Pianka? Assume he truly believes that ebola would be a good thing (which I don't believe he does). But if he did, since that's just a belief then should he be fired, censured, etc?
Finally, I don't think that PZ Myers has done much to advance his cause. The take home lesson might be that just because someone is a prominent blogger doesn't mean that they reflect the actual views of the community which they – directly or indirectly – set themselves up to speak for.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 11:12 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
"First a TV show, next a new book ([T]he God Delusion)."
"The God Delusion" Unbelievable. (Note the triple-edged meaning of my rapier-sharp comment.)
Comment by Douglas — April 23, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Ethel:
The Courts are not truth/reality detectors. And a file is not a transcript. Without an actual recording of what was said in the tenure meeting, it is indeed a matter of trust.
Exactly. And every tenure denial of an ID sympathizer will be trumpeted against the backdrop of scientists saying they would deny tenure to someone who believed ID is science. This is why it is in the best interest of a tenure committee to record the meeting and make such transcripts available if needed. It is the only way to swat down conspiracy theories and the erosion of trust. Unless you live in the bubble.
Agreed. I was talking about tenure decisions.
I don't think he should be fired or censured. He should simply be publicly criticized. After all, the transcripts of this speech do show an ideological rant filled with stupidity. But I have addressed this before. Scholars have set the precedent of issuing decrees about positions they want to distance themselves from.
Now this raises a very interesting angle. Myers has a very popular blog and he presents himself as more than himself. He postures as a representative of science and academia and thus people will treat him as such unless other equally prominent bloggers from academia make it clear when Myers has gone off the deep end. What's more, Myers himself entangles his web presence with real life by telling everyone that he votes for tenure in the real world, how he would vote, and why he would vote.
The take home message is that we do have a very visible professor who has publicly admitted that he has a blanket litmus test that will guide his voting. And even though you have been critical, you yourself won't go so far as to admit this is a crank position. A few more Myers and academia can kiss the trust good-bye.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Mike,
Actually, what is said in the T&P meeting is almost irrelevant unless what is said finds its way into the letter that the committee has to produce. The committee only makes a recommendation – they do not make the tenure decision – and that recommendation is transmitted to the Department Head in the form of a letter which then becomes part of the file. The decision to award or deny tenure is based on the file and that decision is ultimately made by the Provost or similar. In my experience people are extremely guarded in T&P meetings because of the potential for legal action. Further, the presence of an outside member and possibly an ombudsperson only adds to how carefully people conduct themselves.
The recommendation letter has to provide very specific reasons why tenure is being recommended or not. It is essentially a legal document and carries the signature of all members of the committee. The committee doesn't just record a secret up or down vote, it has to provide a strong, well thought out letter than explains and justifies the recommendation – whatever it is. So even a biased discussion in the T&P meeting would have to be translated into concrete and documentable reasons in the letter. The Department Head then has to add his or her own independent letter which may agree or disagree with the committee. Then the Dean does the same – and so on all the way up the food chain.
If a conspiracy develops against someone then it would develop well before and outside of the T&P meeting. I am not saying it couldn't happen. But the system in place at most Universities is set up to protect the rights of assistant professors as much as possible.
As for Myers – if you look at what I said, I said that I don't think that ***he's*** a crank. If by crank-position you mean "away from the mainstream" then the position is crank. I think it is more likely that Myers is guilty of hubris and that he wouldn't have the huevos to do what he claims he would do.
Here's a counter-example, Fritz Schaeffer is a prominent quantum chemist who is a creationist. He moved from UC Berkeley to the University of Georgia. The faculty at Georgia knew full well that he's a creationist and holds what many would consider to be crank personal views. But he produces decent papers, brings in lots of research funding and trains many students. So they hired him despite his views. And the University of Georgia is an execllent secular university which stands in some contrast to Baylor and especially to UMM or the place where Dembski sits (whose name I forget and can't be bothered to look up). So the notion that creationist views disqualifies one from academia has at least one counter example.
I'd also note that Myers seems to be stuck in a possibly terminal associate professor position – i.e., he seems to have few prospects for promotion to full professor, unless UMM promotes people who don't publish. Anyway, it looks like PZ himself didn't get tenure at Temple (I'm just guessing based on the 7 years he spent there as listed on his vita plus his comments about not judging someone because they didn't get tenure) which may have embittered him. Certainly it seems a delicate subject for him. Sometimes those who get tenure and move on to a different – lower ranked school – become the most fanatic about standards for promotion and tenure. Basically, there is no reason to take his views seriously except that they serve to advance the ID movement's charges of bias which they use to cover up their inability to produce any actual research findings.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 23, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Ethel,
I'm not sure a few extra layers of bureaucracy buys you much more trust. Remember, you don't have to convince someone like me – in some ID circles, I'm kinda a wuss.
Comment by MikeGene — April 23, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Ethel: You mentioned that you have viewed Myers' vita, which is currently unavailable from the UMM faculty web pages listing (it goes nowhere). I am curious as to whether he has tenure in his current position. Can you confirm that based on what you've seen? Thanks.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Joy,
Here' s his 2003 vita
http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/personnel/cv/Myers.html
and here's an updated one
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/about_pharyngula/
He's now an associate professor which usually – but not invariably – implies tenure. Since he says he sits on tenure committees then he almost certainly has tenure (there are exceptions to this as well, but in this case it's pretty much certain that PZ is tenured. After leaving Temple UMM took him on as assistant professor but probably just as a sort of probationary thing. Given his 7 years at Temple as assistant professor any early promotion at UMM is almost certain to be with tenure.).
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 24, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Mike,
I am not really concerned whether anyone is convinced or not – that's essentially how the system works with T&P committees. Given how the ID community seems addicted to crank science – going well beyond ID itself – and given it's proclivity to assume the worst of mainstream science, despite any and all facts, being considered a wuss by these guys is something of a compliment. Certainly you Pianka apology is to your lasting discredit in their eyes but at least you can live with yourself, right?
Now I'm off to try my metaphysical hand at spoon bending.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 24, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am
[...] MikeGene at Telic Thoughts has posted a response to one example of stupid reasoning regarding Beckwith's tenure denail. [...]
Pingback by SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE » Blog Archive » Stupid Reasoning and Beckwith’s Tenure Denial — July 3, 2006 @ 11:28 am
July 28th, 2008 at 2:29 am
[...] here is the gist of what I wrote, peppered with the passages that inspired my own comments: In April of 2004, Myers wrote on his blog that a professor promoting Intelligent Design should not get [...]
Pingback by The Scientific Method « Outside the Asylum — July 28, 2008 @ 2:29 am