Response to PZ Myers on His Defense
by JoyDear PZ;
Thanks for your response to my concerns about your expressed intent to deny tenure to teachers at your university based on what has been legally established to be religious belief. I especially enjoyed your creative use of adjectives and the linked defense by Mark Nutter over at his semi-interesting Scientism blog that appears to be dedicated mostly to what we say here at Telic Thoughts. It's always nice to know our thoughts enjoy such wide distribution.
I would have responded to you on your own blog, but I have tried to post comments before and they have never made it out of the pre-screen holding bin. So there would be no point. Thus I'm responding here, figuring that you will either see it on one of your drive-bys or it will be forwarded to you by Nutter or someone else.
So, starting with my objection to your original assertions, the three sentences below from that blog contain very specific verbs describing what would disqualify a tenure candidate in your view:
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.
Notice if you will that the word "teach" does not appear in any of these three sentences. There's one "claims" and two "thinks." Using requisite standard English grammar, I parse these words to relate to a candidate's beliefs and expression. You said nothing in your original blog about the candidate's teaching record - which usually amounts to years' worth of evaluations and is a legitimate body of evidence to be considered whenever tenure is offered or applied for.
It would be academically justifiable and perfectly legal to deny tenure to a teacher who has used his/her classroom to teach that ID is science while ignoring the body of evidence for standard NDS theoretics, if teaching the body of evidence for standard NDS theoretics is the curriculum expectation and course description (i.e., it's not a class on ID). But that is NOT what you actually said. What you said is that you would vote against tenure for what a candidate "claims" or "thinks" about ID - IOW, his/her beliefs and expression, things clearly under the protection of the Constitution's first amendment, civil rights law, fair employment practices and your own university's policies.
Sometimes one is well-advised to be careful what s/he wishes for, because it can come back to bite him or her in the proverbial rear end. This is, I think, one of those times. The idea of teleological design in life has been fought by people on your 'side' of the aisle for years, and those forces won in Dover with a ruling that ID *is* religion. Publicly funded institutions can no longer discriminate in hiring, career advancement, etc. based solely on what someone "claims" or "thinks" about ID.
Sincerely,
Some Clown
April 24th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
[...] kes another swing Over at the Telic Thoughs blog, "Joy" has posted a Response to PZ Myers on His Defense, in a game if misguided attempt to make her accusations of illegal discrimina [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » “Joy” takes another swing — April 24, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
The idea of teleological design in life has been fought by people on your 'side' of the aisle for years, and those forces won in Dover with a ruling that ID *is* religion. Publicly funded institutions can no longer discriminate in hiring, career advancement, etc. based solely on what someone "claims" or "thinks" about ID.
Ironically true, yet I would not expect a federal judge to uphold a decision on any textual basis whatsoever any longer. I.e., not the Constitution nor even their own new precedents and layers of textually degenerate decisions either. Evidence accumulates that they will do what they will do based on whatever they will, and that seems generally to be what will increase the power of the Judiciary, unsurprisingly. Given their level of reasoning it may take little more than someone coming into court and murmuring about "science" while mewling of "religion" to appeal to the intellectual vanity typical to the new natural aristocracy to get them to exchange one decision for another. Note, both the founding documents contain both teleological language as well as direct statements about the sovereignty of the Creator. The Judiciary has come to the position of the Constitution itself being "unconstitutional."
So what is constitutional? It may be whatever some tin-pot judge says it is given whatever they've pulled out of their own penumbra lately. Don't think that they'll necessarily protect your rights as defined by a text, even texts that they've written.
Comment by mynym — April 24, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
The idea of teleological design in life has been fought by people on your 'side' of the aisle for years, and those forces won in Dover with a ruling that ID *is* religion.
It's worth remembering that the Dover decision was a victory for the real Intelligent Design movement.
The Dover school board's scheme had nothing to do with modern ID research. They were trying to hijack ID's good name in order to sneak Biblical Literalism into the public schools, and then they lied about it when they got caught.
That's a good thing, because now ID is no longer of any use to them. They've got no choice but to move on to some other kind of trickery, which means that real ID supporters can start concentrating on their research and begin the long process of salvaging their repuation.
What you said is that you would vote against tenure for what a candidate "claims" or "thinks" about ID - IOW, his/her beliefs and expression, things clearly under the protection of the Constitution's first amendment, civil rights law, fair employment practices and your own university's policies.
How so?
People who support real ID don't fall into a protected class. Dr. Myers thinks that they're crackpots. Maybe he's wrong, but that's his privilege. There's no law that says he has to support people even if he thinks they're crackpots.
People who support Dover-style fake ID are religiously motivated, so they have a certain amount of protection from discrimination. But this doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want. If someone's religious beliefs compel them to reject the scientific method and lie about it, then they're not qualified for a teaching position.
Comment by chaosengineer — April 24, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
LOL. Joy's contributions are priceless.
Here's what Myers stated originally:
Summarizing this "“ it is Myers' studied professional opinion that an academic who thinks ID is science is incompetent. Myers' opinion is not based on any religious test, and indeed he goes the extra mile to defuse joy's mindless and tortured attack. Once again, here is the part that joy conveniently omitted:
OK, so Myers clearly states that it's about merit and not religion. Rather than take Myers to task for this, joy chooses to twist Myers' opinion into some pathetic anti-religious lie.
Where does this lead? Obviously, in joy's opinion, IDists are entitled to admission to schools, scholarships, assistantships, fellowships, jobs, tenure, and grants. Not because they have earned any of these things, but because denial of any of them is a violation of their First Amendment rights. IOW, for the IDist, things like merit, achievement, and ability are irrelevant. The IDist has a right to these things, everything else be darned.
Well, talk about dog bites man. This is a near-universal sentiment amongst IDists. It shouldn't be surprising that joy feels strongly enough about this to make veiled threats of siccing lawyers on Myers for nothing more than exercising his informed professional judgement.
Comment by Art — April 24, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Mynym:
While this is certainly true enough, Mynym, it's also current precedent. Of course the Supremes (and their backup bands) won't protect my rights. Nobody's ever done that for me, if I wasn't ready, willing and able to do it for myself. I don't have a million or two to spare and to the ACLU I'm "the wrong color" (I was actually told that once) anyway, the courts haven't been an avenue of redress for a number of years.
As the Baltimore County DA once told me a long time ago when I was swearing out a warrant, if I believe me or mine are in immediate physical danger, I should kill 'em first and talk to him later about why. I never believed it, of course, since "justice" is not equal in this country (or anywhere else I've ever heard of).
So I just do what I can, having taken that oath (and meant it) to do it for myself and whoever else needs it, however I can.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Joy should perhaps wonder why "creation scientists" haven't thought of the same neat trick before, and taken over academia since 1987, one religious discrimination case after the other.
Comment by Andrea — April 24, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
chaosengineer:
And yet the victors in that struggle (however justified by the Dover SB's actions - and it was) managed to earn a ruling that has come home to roost - as Mike would say. I warned several individuals in the forefront of that struggle that this would happen, and that their own zeal could then be turned against them if they weren't careful.
Outside the lab, Peez hasn't been careful.
That means little in the overall scheme of things, since there is no harmful action here to be redressed. There's just boastful and ill-considered words to the street-level army. Keep it up, and the teaching of NDS may eventually be ruled "religion," FAPP on the anti side (but still belief rather than fact). I don't think that's what they really wanted, but it's what they'll get. It just takes some clever lawyers and a sympathetic judge…
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Just wipe off the white pancake and the rouge from the cheek, and take off the red nose. Bet they'll take you then.
Comment by Andrea — April 24, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Turn over my Krylon and baby powder (in that way oversized puff)? Heaven forbid! And I get noses by the gross, Andrea. Really.
My husband used to run for President quite a bit [Party Party - Birthdays, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs...]. Sometimes his campaign even coincided with an actual general election, too! In '84 his slogan was "The Country Could Use a Good Laugh," and since he was a regular on a late-nite scary B-movie show, the BBC interviewed him in a fluff piece as a "dark horse." He spent the entire rest of the campaign - on live TV - complaining that he's a white-face clown, NOT a dark horse!
In '88 the slogan had matured - "This Time I'm Serious." We got an official thing from the FEC when it was all over, and much of the Big Apple Circus and Ringling actually voted for him! How can you go wrong? He can juggle [economics], and he can eat fire. What more do you want? §;o)
[Disclaimer: He thinks a lot like PZ thinks about ID, so I get this at home too].
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
April 24th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
The issue here is that PZ would vote against an otherwise qualified scientist if that scientist also thought that ID was a scientific pursuit.
Comment by David — April 24, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 8:48 am
I can't see the fallacy in Joy's argument.
1) Dover established to the satisfaction of most opponents of ID (and certainly legally) that ID is religious.
2) PZ argues that he will oppose tenure in people who believe in ID on principle.
3) Given 1) PZ's objection to their belief in ID is therefore objection to a religious belief.
4) Given 3) and the constitution, PZ is therefore acting against the first amendment, and discriminating on religious grounds.
Where is the logical error?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — April 25, 2006 @ 8:48 am
April 25th, 2006 at 9:46 am
David: Dr. Myers would argue that a person who believes in ID couldn't be "otherwise qualified".
He thinks that ID is crackpottery on the order of believing that the Sun goes around the Earth. So think about a person who adamantly insisted that the Sun went around the Earth, and couldn't be persuaded by any evidence to the contrary.
Is it really likely that this is just an isolated eccentricity, and that he's qualified to be a scientist as long as he doesn't work on that one topic? Or would you suspect that he's got a deep misunderstanding of the scientific method that makes him inherently unreliable?
Maybe Dr. Myers is wrong, but surely he's allowed to form his own opinions about who is and isn't a crackpot. If he gets it wrong, then his own reputation will suffer. That's how it's always been.
Exile From Groggs: The fallacies are in (1) and (3).
1 - There are religious and secular flavors of Intelligent Design. The ruling only applies to the specific flavor that was on display at Dover. (Although if there are future court cases, the ID advocates will need to be able to show significant differences between their ID and Dover ID.)
3 - Anti-discrimination laws are a shield, not a sword. I can't just sit around at work all day and say "That's against my religion!" whenever they ask me to do something. And if my religion requires me to ignore or reject any real-world observations that contradict my interpretation of the Bible, then I'm not really qualified to work as a scientist.
Comment by chaosengineer — April 25, 2006 @ 9:46 am
April 25th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Chaosengineer,
That is certainly true in terms of private opinions. But, e.g., I happen to think that Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as ID proponents) are crackpots and have provided some examples of quotes (up the thread) from their literature to demonstrate that their medical beliefs are not just religious - they claim scientific credibility too. Am I allowed to vote against tenure for an otherwise qualified professor who is a JW simply because he or she is a JW? The answer is that I am not allowed to do that by University regulation and other laws.
Unfortunately, Myers stated his opinion carelessly and this has fed into the wild idea that there exists a litmus test in academia against simply believing in ID or simply believing that it is science (as opposed to teaching that it is). Dimes to donuts there are hordes of arts and law faculty who are so clueless that they believe ID is science. Rather than trying to defend his position Myers would be better off admitting that he misspoke - if he did - and expanding his explanation to say precisely what he meant.
As for the ID crowd - it's really rather simple for them to develop a strategy to become accepted in academic circles. It's the same strategy that all subfields of science employ.
Tenure is rarely awarded because someone invented an entirely new field or made an Einsteinian scale breakthrough. It's mainly about demonstrating the ability to develop an independent and productive research program that advances your field. So the ID community should encourage graduate students and postdocs who support ID to obtain academic jobs and demonstrate competence by doing original research in their field and getting it published. They should resist the temptation to try to do ID related work in their professional capacity while they are assistant professors. Just like a physics assistant professor would be well advised to stay away from cold fusion or Joy's field - Unified Collapse theory. More prosaically perhaps, he or she would be well advised to not try to do something so new and big that after 6 years they have no papers but are "on the verge of something big." This is a major reason why tenure is denied - i.e, simple over ambition and over reach.
For example, Dembski - that Isaac Newton of Information Theory - would have been better served to have concentrated on developing new mathematical ideas and publishing these in regular journals, thereby building up his reputation primarily as a mathematician. Then perhaps he would now be on the faculty at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge, England rather than languishing wherever it is he doth languish. If enough people who believed in ID did this pretty soon there would be a small community of ID proponents with good academic reputations in several branches of experimental, theoretical and computational science.
Since they would then have tenure they could then exploit their newly gained academic freedom to do direct research in ID, possibly getting support from the DI which I'm sure could scare up the reserach dollars from a few supporters. They could have conferences and even start their own academic journal.
I am baffled why they haven't done it this way. But, I guess I'm not - because this approach relies on several things (i) scientific competence, (ii) the ability to do reputable science while believing that ID is science and (iii) the necessity that Nature herself recognize that ID truly is science, for, if it isn't then you can't do scientific research in it no matter how hard you might try. But, if you have tenure it doesn't matter because you can't be fired for pursuing dead ends.
I suspect that this is why Dembski and Behe who are in a position to do research don't do any. In Dembski's case he prefers to divert his energies into theology and absurd thought experiments. I guess being a professor at wherever he is beats having to work for a living because you couldn't get tenure as a mathematician.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 25, 2006 @ 11:11 am
April 25th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
chaosengineer: The point of my objection to PZ's public boasting is that he can't legally discriminate in hiring/firing practices on the basis of personal beliefs. His public boasting that he'd do it anyway would be a legitimate objection any tenure candidate in his department could lodge on probable cause.
Tenure is a serious decision as PZ says it is, and it materially effects the life and career of a candidate. So why do you suppose universities don't include evaluations of personal beliefs and expressions in their tenure policies?
…do you think that might just possibly have something to do with legal standards?
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Ethel:
??? My field, back when I had a field somewhere other than in my yard, was health physics. Depending on what particular course is being taught, the best current information is something to be entirely expected. Your question to me in that thread was about quantum mechanics. The testing of quantum theoretics - you know, the predictions that were so very accurate for so long as our atom-smashers couldn't get past the GeV energy level - is very much a part of the science. I can't imagine why you'd think it's not, given the sheer volume of Nobels accumulated by confirmation of this critter or that one in the Zoo.
Within the last decade accelerators finally broke the TeV level (and have nearly doubled that now). The oft-predicted and utterly vital (to RQFT) "God Particle" is still MIA at more than twice its predicted energy level. Zip, nada, zilch. Wiggly Higgly simply isn't there - the theory broke down. This is Unitary Crisis in the current best theoretic, not "Unified Collapse."
Why on earth would you wish to keep paying students training for careers in physics ignorant of this rather dire situation? Why would you forbid mention of the several clever reformulations out there seeking criticism, falsification and/or acceptance? The kids are going to find out eventually. Do you want them to be embarrassed because their physics professors thought they were too "delicate" to know about it? Aren't you worried that you'd be sued for malpractice?
Well, it's entirely possible that in Dembski's fields, absurd thought experiments actually constitute academic research. B.A. in psychology, M.S. in statistics, Ph.D. in philosophy and mathematics. As well as a Master's in divinity from Princeton. Postdoc fellowship work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and computer science at Princeton.
Currently Carl F.H. Henry Professor of Science and Theology at Southern Seminary in Louisville. Granted, there's not much for philosophers of science (or anything else) to do in some multinational gigacorp's private laboratory in a state university, but that doesn't mean they're not qualified to do what they do. Whatever that is, and yes, it's often "absurd thought experiments."
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Joy,
It's just a matter of learning to walk before you run. I know that the frontiers of physics is an exciting topic and that the Higgs boson is a fascinating topic. However, in my experience it's better to learn such basic distinctions as between particle physics and atomic and molecular physics which inhabit very different energy regimes (see my initial "question" to you). It's also good to understand what the term quantum mechanics means as distinct from quantum chromodynamics. I know that this might seem a bit picky, but, you know, I'm just a bit old fashioned that way. It's sort of the difference in health physics between using x-rays or gamma-rays to look inside somebody's cranium.
I'm only against absurd Gedanken experiments, by the way - the non absurd variety can be quite useful.
Dembski does claim to have expertise in many fields and also styles himself rather grandly a "public intellectual." Odd that's he now a professor of science and theology - has he given up on the mathematics? But, anyone can make claims, now can't they? Jack of all trades and all that …. Is Carl Henry any relation to John Henry? Now that was a guy who knew how to focus and do a single job well.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 25, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
It might be worth asking how many people would vote for tenure for PZ. I was on, and even chaired, a faculty review committee that examined tenure applications. His publication record is not impressive–he would have been a weak candidate at best, and would have required a senior "champion" to strong-arm for approval.
Comment by David Heddle — April 25, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Ethel:
And it still depends on the course description and requisite background of the students, doesn't it? It doesn't take 9 to 12 hours a week for 8 or 10 years to teach a legal adult with some rudimentary skills what complex numbers are or how they're weighted in a simple application of the Schrodinger equation. And when they get to diagrams are they not to be introduced to QED/QCD (or do we skip diagrams and geometries, configuration space dimensionalities and particle generations)? Are they to be told nothing about experimentation and how it's done? Theories don't stand sacrosanct as just absurd thought experiments or fun with math, you know.
I'm also not sure what you think health physics is, but it's not radiology. My job had to do with the transmutation of heavy metals and mass to energy - and mass production of atomic/subatomic beasties no self-respecting god would have created on purpose. Very ugly business.
I remember the day the NRC ordered the shut down the linear accelerator at Los Alamos during rush hour. Seems some nameless HP had discovered (and let it be known) that they were neutron-activating commuters on the other side of the wall twice a day (and had been at it for years). That was back when the outrageous cancer rate in that city had been blamed by some overeducated resident "experts" [a.k.a. "liars"] on green chili peppers, and not even the NRC believed it. It was an HP who quantified the yield on the Chinese atmospheric tests of '76-'78. And who do you think let the world know Chernobyl happened, since the Soviets sure weren't talking? Yup. An HP (in Sweden, as I recall).
I walked out very much on purpose and never looked back. But I don't mind telling you it's not about dental x-rays. It's about mass death and destruction, and why we shouldn't be engaging in that sort of thing.
"Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business."
Edwin Schrodinger, working with Niels Bohr on the multi-body problem [configuration space dimensions x3 for each] and still not being able to restore unity to a sufficiently crazy quantum theory.
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Joy,
I don't understand what this means. What do you mean by "how they're weighted in a simple application…' Can you provide a simple application and show how they should be weighted and explain what "being weighted" means. This part of your reply threw me for a loop.
Agree on Los Alamos - those guys have gone to the other side. And blowing up rocks on weekends and murdering small animals doesn't endear me to them either. Good thing you left. The Green Chilli is excellent though. I'm sure they blamed the green chilli because they are getting backhanders from MacDonalds.
Oh, yes, I looked on the Health Physics Society of the University of Michigan and they stress an introduction to radiation - I would have thought radiation and imaging were part and parcel of health physics and that radiology came under it's umbrella - but then I'm not a health physicist.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 25, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
ethel,
"And blowing up rocks on weekends and murdering small animals doesn't endear me to them either."
That's cold. But then, perhaps you meant "…doesn't endear them to me either".
Comment by Douglas — April 25, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Joy and Ethel, if you were both males I would swear you are sizing each other up and probably preparing to square off.
But since you are both females, I'm guessing you're on the verge of hugging and inviting each other to lunch!
I say, "Go for it!"
P.S. Regardless of gender, you both seem very knowledgeable, and way beyond my ken of physics!
Comment by Lutepisc — April 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
To tell you the truth, I'm not an especially good teacher of this sort of stuff (glazed eyes is the usual response), and haven't used it much in nearly 30 years. My own education was seriously 7/12 (with 3-day breaks every 2 weeks to catch our breath) intensive, not your standard science major at a liberal arts country club being spoon fed and baby-sat. Went back for the crystallography and genetics later - because I could - and again returned for consciousness studies just a few years ago. The luxury of absorbing knowledge lolling on the quad lawn at cherry blossom time must be nice. But that was not my experience…
I was talking about superpositional states weighted by complex numbers, per Schrodinger - that's wave/particle duality basic 101 description, and sets up the prediction basis (probability of finding the beastie here or there and at what energy level, determined by the weightings). When you're talking turtles things get all complex, including the numbers. Schrodinger's basic QM, but to go anywhere with it I would have thought one needed to diagram in order to understand the experimental evidence. And once you introduce Feynman the Juggling Jester, I just don't know how you could get around QED/QCD. This involves introducing the whole Turtle Race. By the time you're all the way to the bottom-most turtles, things are really strange…
I don't know how you could teach the knowledge without betting on a turtle at the starting gate, and once you've placed a bet, you'd best stay for the finish. That's pretty much what I learned.
The Deadly Green Chili Caper was as hilarious as it was notorious. We laughed about it as irony/satire (since it certainly wasn't harmless). Sort of like shuttle jokes I won't repeat, but laughed at even while crying. See, they'd been dumping tritium into an arroyo out back for decades. You know tritium - it's an unstable heavy hydrogen isotope and is put to use in the environment (particularly in living things) just as if it were hydrogen. It also binds quite readily to oxygen, and becomes "heavy water." So, when you consider that the water was used to irrigate the surrounding fields (Northern New Mexico's Finest), those chilis just might have been causing self-destructing life forms. Though the eggheads weren't eating enough of them to worry much about…
There's a reason you don't want to be burning brush and leaves and crop debris in the Los Alamos area - that turns it into fallout.
Radiologists must of course understand radiation and its sources (mostly cobalt, for medical purposes), and how to calculate dose, dose rates and effects. So I'm sure they get the same sort of early courses in a college environment. In my particular application, sources pretty much covered the entire table and we had to know all the daughters and isotopes both heavy and light and what they do to biological tissues by source contact versus ingested/inhaled damage. Be able to tell from a swipe what was present, in what concentration, and retroactively derive exactly what's going on in the reactor or target zone. The sideline to that application is calculating shielding requirements and stay-times based on that information, then making sure people abide those. That's probably a lot like what a radiologist does, only dealing with very big exponentials for both environmental presence and people exposed. Some of them more stubborn than mules… §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Douglas,
Yes - you're absolutely correct! Now I'm all embarrassed…..but thanks……..
Eth
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 25, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Joy,
Thanks - that makes sense. I was genuinely puzzled by what you said but now I see you were talking about basis set expansions and your explanation is pretty good too.
Now back to blowing up rocks but I'll leave the small varmits alone ……
Ethel
ps: I get my chilli from Hatch. September roasting is a highlight of the year.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 25, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
April 25th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Ethel:
Oops. Did I neglect to mention the great yellowcake dam breach of 1979 out on the res near Gallup? The Rio Grande isn't what it used to be… §;o)
I hear you on the chilis. None finer, and I often wondered if it wasn't "something in the water" (ignoring the implications for "you are what you eat" of course). That wondering came about because my brother was HP site coordinator at a plant near Vidalia, Georgia at the time, and he introduced me to those ever-so scrumptious Vidalia Sweet Onions. Now, I can grow the Spanish parent stock here, but they're nothing like Vidalias. Has to do with the amount of selenium in the soil, and there's some interesting isotopes of that present around nukes too…
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
April 26th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Ethel said: "That is certainly true in terms of private opinions. But, e.g., I happen to think that Jehovah's Witnesses (as well as ID proponents) are crackpots and have provided some examples of quotes (up the thread) from their literature to demonstrate that their medical beliefs are not just religious - they claim scientific credibility too "
Don't you think most Chrisitian believers are crackpots? Your JW quotes are all hopelessly outdated, being over 40 years old. The current JW blood policy is considerably different from the one 40 years ago. The JW belief that taking a blood transfusion is against God's law is based soley on Scripture, most notably Acts 15: 28-29 that says to "abstain from blood".
Current JW literature is scientifically correct when it points out the medical risks associated with taking blood transfusions. You seem to be confusing two separate issues here. Whether or not blood transfusions are right or wrong is a moral question that JW's seek to answer solely from Scripture. Science has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, when reporting on the medical risks associated with taking blood transfusions JW's rely on evidence coming from the scientific community.
Comment by Jack — April 26, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
April 26th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Jack,
As I said the JW position on blood is primarily scriptural. However, because they hold that the Scriptures are from God and God created us, then according to them such views must be correct scientifically as well. That's why, over the past 45 years or so JWs have used - and most often misused, through selective quotations - the medical literature to try to (i) demonstrate that their scriptural position makes sense medically and (ii) to scare JWs into refusing transfusions by insisting that transfusions are bad for you as well as morally wrong. In other words, how can God's moral advice not be good for you?
You would be advised to do some research before making such ridiculous claims. Jehovah's Witnesses do point out the risks associated with blood transfusions but do so without pointing out the risks of not accepting a transfusion. That is deliberate bias and by no means constitutes being scientifically accurate or correct. Risks only make sense when presented in some context. For example, one could refuse all surgery because there are risks associated with all surgeries. Would you consider it scientifically legitimate to advise the refusal of all surgery simply because risks exist?
Also, Jehovah's Witnesses are now allowed to accept any and all blood parts provided that such components are sufficiently subdivided according to arbitrary Watchtower rules so that they don't "look like blood" even though they are blood. For example, whole red cells, whole white cells and platelets are banned. However, a preparation made from subdivisions of such cells is acceptable even if nothing is discarded. In essence, it's like saying that you cannot eat a ham and cheese sandwich but you can eat the ham, the cheese, the bread, the mayo etc separately. So, how does that protect one from the risks of blood transfusions? Some hemophiliac JWs have become HIV positive through accepting Factor VIII under JW rules. So, for the Watchtower Society to pretend that their advice protects one against the risks of blood transfusion is ludicrous and dishonest.
The quotes may be old but I challenge you to find retractions by the Watchtower Society of those quotes. In fact older JWs still believe many such things. It is an article of faith amongst JWs that the Watchtower Society speaks for God and that unless some teaching is explicitly changed then it still stands. Do you think JWs don't take the Bible seriously just because it is old?
But if you want something more recent then note this from the June 15, 2004 issue of the Watchtower magazine which explicitly embraces the arguments that you have said are outdated;
Note, first of all, that the Watchtower Society itself points to the arguments it made "decades ago." You can't have it both ways - either those arguments don't count or they do. The Society says they do, so how can you argue otherwise? Since the Society doesn't say "arguments made decades ago with the exception of …" and since it has nowhere renounced its earlier arguments - which I quoted - then only a biased apologist could claim that they don't now apply.
Also, I would ask you, Jack, to show me the scripture that defines intact red blood cells as being unacceptable whereas a hemoglobin extract is acceptable. Here the Society clearly states that their refusal of blood components is in line with "medical facts" which they extract from a book called Emergency Care. In fact, the distinction they make is nonsense and is designed simply to mislead JWs about the scientific validity of an otherwise arbitrary position having no scriptural basis.
Further, the quotes I provided earlier show that the origin of the blood policy - in the early 1960s - relied in large part on conflating medical and scriptural reasons. To this day the Society explicitly advances the notion that the Bible is completely in accord with science.
Surely you understand that the arguments made to initiate a new policy are relevant even years later, unless explicit retractions are made? Even if you don't the Watchtower Society does as its statements in 2004 make clear. I'm sure most JWs would defer to what it, rather than to what Jack-of-Telic-Thoughts, says.
Perhaps you are a supporter of the JW blood policy in its own right. If you are then I suggest that you look to do some research rather than accepting JW propaganda at face value. More likely you are defending it simply because the scenario I raise is inconvenient for ID which similarly assumes that nature must conform to arbitrary religious ideas.
And finally, Jack, no I don't think that all Christians or even Muslims etc. are crackpots. I may disagree with certain things but that doesn't qualify them as being crackpots. In fact I have far more sympathy with those who have faith than with those who seek to do the theologically impossible and prove by naturalistic means that God exists. Essentially, such ones are denying the Christ by subjecting him to human tests. They are also diminishing the central value of faith in Christian thought and exhibiting the qualities which God took Job to task for and Jesus Thomas.
I listened to John Polkinghorne on Speaking of Faith this past Sunday and was quite taken with what he said. Perhaps you should read your own Bible Jack - it warns against making false accusations against your brother or, in this case, sister. Such ones will end up somewhere hot and nasty unless they repent and mend their ways.
Ethel
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 26, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
April 26th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Jack, Ethel
You might be interested in "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation" in the Autumn issue of Baylor's Journal of Church and State.
Comment by Gedanken — April 26, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
April 26th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Jack,
I wonder how an organization can claim to abstain from blood when it only abstains from whole blood and from the four components the Governing Body have identified as the "primary" components of blood (red cells, white cells, plasma, and platelets) when:
As of June 15, 2004 they permit acceptance of 100% of whole blood in the form of medically available fractions derived from the four primary components.
Take, for instance, the red blood cell. It is 97% hemoglobin and 3% is a small protein outer-membrane. Without this outer membrane, the hemoglobin is unable to carry oxygen, but does serve certain other useful functions (which is why it is a medically available fraction in this specific form).
Jehovah's Witnesses are permitted to accept hemoglobin, and the protien membrane it is naturally wrapped in, as long as the wrapper and hemoglobin are separated first.
Now, a thinking person might be led to conclude that you are taking 100% of a red blood cell in such a case. I am such a person. Please, try and dissuade me from that viewpoint.
In fact, I believe that if you derive the permitted fractions from blood, and then accept all the permitted fractions (100% of whole blood is available in the form of fractions from the four primary components), then you are lying if you claim to abstain from blood.
Organizationally, to state that disciples of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (because that is the entity that teaches them) abstain from blood while also teaching that Jehovah's Witnesses can accept 100% of fractions derived from blood is to lie as an organization.
From a medical standpoint, you are mistaken when you say that the information currently available from Jehovah's Witnesses accurately portrays the medical risk associated with blood transfusions and blood products as part of a treatment regimen.
There was a very interesting legal theory proposed in the Autumn issue of Baylor Law's Journal of Church and State written by one Kerry Louderback-Wood entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation." It proposes that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses have potentially made themselves civilly liable for narrow relief suits in cases where someone made a decision regarding blood usage based on misrepresentations of medical facts.
Obviously, many Jehovah's Witnesses would not be able to benefit from such relief, however there are cases where this misinformation regarding risks from blood tranfusion has convinced those who have never been Jehovah's Witnesses to permit refusal of transfusion for their children or incapacitated spouse. Such a person then has cause, potentially, for a law suit.
Ms. Louderback-Wood was incredibly thorough in cataloguing medical misrepresentations present in the brochure that the December 2005 Our Kingdom Ministry encouraged parents to educate their children from.
I'm afraid you are much mistaken about the medical accuracy of the risks as portrayed by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Respectfully,
AnOtherOpinion
Comment by AnOtherOpinion — April 26, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Chaosengineer: Sorry, this goes back a bit. "Anti-discrimination laws are a shield, not a sword."
That sounds good, but the distinction between offensive and defensive isn't actually that simple. You can whump somebody on the head with a shield, if you choose to. If ID is religious (and therefore can't be considered science) then it is religious (and therefore can't be a basis for discrimination). I'm not saying that PZ should be dragged out and shot because he is in danger of violating the constitution (sword). I am saying that the constitution should protect people from the attitude that PZ expresses (shield).
"Flavours of ID." You may distinguish between ID at Dover and ID at DI/Telic Thoughts. I would agree. However, that distinction isn't being observed by many opponents of ID, including people who have commented on my own blog, who argue that Dover basically wrapped up the "ID is religion" argument in all cases. Perhaps you ought to spread the word. My argument was extending the logic of opponents of ID, not my own belief (which is that inferring design isn't religious at all).
Comment by Exile From Groggs — April 27, 2006 @ 9:54 am
April 27th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I'm no expert on the JW blood policy but I do know that JW's refuse blood transfusions because Acts 15:28-29 tells Christians to "abstain from blood". It doesn't necessarily follow that if you don't abstain from blood that bad things are going to happen to you medically. Ethel seems to think that JW's need to prove that the Biblical admonition to "abstain from blood" is scientific. First, I don't thinks that's true and second I don't see how it could be done. The Biblical admonition to "abstain from blood" is a moral directive not a scientific proposition. Does Ethel think that one can prove the Ten Commandments are scientific? The JW position is that blood transfusions are unholy. It doesn't necessarily follow that if something is unholy it is also unhealthy. Even if transfusions of whole blood were perfectly safe JW's would not take them because their refusal is based on Scripture not science.
I haven't done any research to determine how accurate JW's have been in assessing the risks of blood transfusions over the past 40 years but if I did I would compare it with how accurate the medical community and in particular the Red Cross has been in assessing the safety of blood transfusions. As I recall, they really blew it on Aids.
I don't know all the details regarding the JW position on blood fractions but I do know enough to make a few comments. Acts 15:28-29 tells Christians to "abstain from blood". So logically a Christian that wants to obey this commmand needs to determine what exactly constitutes blood. It's not as simple as saying it's whatever comes out of one's veins. It's a fact that blood is 80% water. If someone were to take a pint of blood and put it in a device that separated out the water and then drank the water would they have drank blood? Of course not. Since the water in a pint of donated blood isn't blood then maybe there are other things in a pint of donated blood that isn't actually blood. And perhaps these non-blood items are okay for a Christian to take. That is the JW position in a nutshell.
This can get very technical and perhaps the JW's don't have it right but at least they are trying to determine what constitutes blood so they can obey the Biblical admonition to abstain from it. If the JW's are wrong about what constitutes blood then what is the correct view? What exactly are Christians to abstain from?
Back in the 1960's JW's couldn't take donated blood or anything derived from donated blood into their system. JW's are now allowed to take many items found in a donated pint of blood. You would think the JW critics would consider this a change for the better but here they are on this thread complaining that JW's don't really abstain from blood. But if the JW's aren't really abstaining from blood then the rest of the Christian community certainly isn't. So what exactly is the point the JW critics are trying to make here? That JW's are in the same boat with all the other Christians in ignoring the Biblical admonition to "abstain from blood" or that the JW's had it right back in the 1960's when they wouldn't accept donated blood or anything derived from donated blood?
Comment by Jack — April 27, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Jack, this thread is obviously so far afield at this point there's no hope it's anything but open. That's okay with me because I didn't expect PZ to respond here anyway. So… you said earlier that JWs don't believe in hell. In which case, what's so dire that they feel a need to kill their kids (or mine)? There are a few million JWs, I think, yet they also believe only 144,000 of them get the brass ring when it's all over. So I'm just not seeing what the big deal is, or why it's worth killing people for.
Besides, there's no way a human being who lives awhile can abstain from blood. Get a scratch or a paper cut, it goes right into the mouth (almost like instinct). Get to the age of six and your baby teeth start falling out - and they bleed. If you get braces as a teenager, I can promise you'll taste some blood. Ever have a nosebleed that goes right down the back of your throat? Ever get punched in the face? Bite your tongue?
…and don't tell me it's okay because it's your own blood (when they're killing children for ridiculous nit-picks). If that were true JWs could bank their own blood for when they ever need it. They don't.
Worse, they're meat-eaters. Not Kosher either, though even Kosher still contains blood. Ever cut up a whole fryer? EEEWWW!!! They eat blood at dinner every night, so what's the point of killing children?
Contextually, the Pagan cultures into which Paul and his evangelists took Christianity were fond of drinking the blood of their sacrificial victims in chalices as a rite. Sort of like Christians do, only Christians use wine instead. It's such an ancient practice that when God determined to set the Jews apart ~4000 years ago (according to them), he demanded they build a killing floor in the Temple with elaborate channels to drain the blood. Had to trim the fat too, and they sure didn't eat bacon. This was to set apart from the Pagan practice, and it had nothing to do with killing children (other than that much of the ritual blood Pagans did drink came from slaughtered children).
So JWs do consume blood. Most of them on a daily basis. Medical risks and benefits are just that - medical risks and benefits. Has nothing to do with what's real, because what's real is that JWs consume blood just like the rest of us. It's a cult, nothing more.
There. Said my piece and I'm done with it.
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Jack,
I don't think or argue that JWs need to prove that their position in scientific. My point is that, over the years, JWs themselves have argued that their position is scientific as a way of bolstering their theological position. In essence if God commands it then it must be good for you.
For example, as I pointed out to Joy, the basis for their position is primarily Acts 15: 28-29 which reads according to the (JW) New World Translation of the Bible:
Most non JW translations say something like "You will fare well" rather than "Good Health to you."
In any event, JWs believe that there are significant health benefits - as well as moral benefits - to abstaining from blood and use the "Good Health" admonition to make their point. That is they scour the medical literature for anything that puts blood transfusions in a bad light while ignoring anything that suggests that these procedures have medical merit. So, e.g., they stress the risks of transfusions while ignoring their benefits. And, since, as Jack agrees, they now accept all blood derivatives then, actually, no blood risks are avoided under the current JW policy. Yet they still stress the risks. This is dishonest and is one reason that AnOtherOpinion states
JWs claim that their leadership alone speaks for God "“ that it is the "sole channel of communication from God to humanity." This obviously makes it difficult for them to admit to past errors or to change their teachings especially when, in the past, JWs have died for refusing organ transplants, vaccinations, serum preparations and certain blood fractions all of which are now allowed. The Watchtower Society claims that no changes have been made. However this is belied by the fact that they now have a complex set of rules which are administered by semi-secret Hospital Liaison Committees which are partly there to ensure that JWs abide by the current set of rules and partly to explain to physicians what a JW can accept and what they cannot. Heaven help a JW who is in a life-or-death situation with no access to such a committee (e.g., an accident in a foreign country.)
No JW critics to my knowledge object to the JWs liberalizing their policy. The main objections are the arbitrary and ever changing nature of the dividing line between what is allowed and what is forbidden and the false suggestion that by following the Watchtower Society's policies certain risks are avoided when they are not. Further, since many JWs are poorly educated (the JWs strongly discourage higher education) many (or most) have no idea which blood parts are acceptable and which are prohibited. This is especially true of older JWs who are the most likely to need specialized blood therapies. Thus, JWs may die simply because they do not understand the rules. That is the JWs claim that they abstain from blood but, actually, they do not but few JWs understand this. The leaders continue to obfuscate and even say one thing to outsiders and another to their congregations. For example,
http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/ab...
There has been much discussion of what Acts 15 means "“ not just among JWs - and it is clear that the JW position is not correct theologically. It is too involved to go into here but there is an extensive discussion here:
http://www.jwtruth.com/article...
Further, the article in last Autumn's issue of the Journal of Church and State (referred to above) describes in great detail how JWs have not been honest about their position on blood and have actually misrepresented the facts. Note that this journal is a learned journal out of Baylor's Dawson Institute where Beckwith resides.
So, in summary, Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions because of their understanding of Acts 15. However, they have argued "“ and continue to argue "“ that this position has scientific and medical merit . They do not claim that the medical arguments are the basis of their position but they do argue that their position is scientifically and medically correct. As time has passed they have modified their position on blood and now they allow 100% of fractions to be transfused provided that those fractions are not intact red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets are whole plasma. However, preparations made from these components and which contain all constituents of these components but in non-intact form are acceptable. This distinction has no scriptural or scientific basis and so their argument is arbitrary and scientifically untenable. However, to justify this delineation they explicitly claim that that the distinctions they make are scientifically correct - they are not.
JWs argue that blood is holy and they cite passages from Leviticus which specify that blood must be poured on on the ground. Obviously, blood fractions come from processing considerable quantities of whole, donated, blood which, clearly, has not been poured out on the ground. Thus, by allowing certain blood fractions JW contradict their own scriptural arguments. This is done to present a more acceptable face to the outside world - see the Bulgaria example above - while continuing to mislead their members into thinking that JWs really do "abstain from blood." They call such behavior "Theocratic Warfare." Most people would call it lying.
Further, it is hypocritical for JWs to accept blood fractions prepared from the blood supply while refusing to donate blood, which JWs are required to refuse to do. A blanket rejection of all blood parts is at least consistent albeit theologically incorrect. The current JW blood policy is indefensible on scriptural, scientific, moral and humanitarian grounds. However, they obfuscate to maintain the pretence that they speak for God who does not change.
That's what can happen when religious beliefs lead one to conclude that nature and science must conform to one's interpretation of scripture.
Ethel
ps: Joy, they believe 144,000 will go to Heaven to rule as kings. The rest will survive Armageddon during which 99.99% of humanity will slaughtered by God (eyes will rot out, flesh will peel away..). JWs in good standing who die before that will be resurrected to that post Armageddon Earthly Paradise. Those who violated the rules won't get resurrected and will be dead forever. They believe Hell is simply the grave - Eccl. says that the dead are conscious of nothing and that's what they believe.
You're right, they are a deadly cult although most individual JWs are decent people. Not many vegans among them though.
Comment by ethel_merganser — April 27, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
April 27th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Joy said: "Jack, this thread is obviously so far afield at this point there's no hope it's anything but open. "
Joy,
Yes, and we have Ethel and you to thank for getting it off track. It was you guys that brought the theology of JW's into this thread where it obviously doesn't belong.
Any religion can be described as a cult. It is a worthless term that is used to describe a religion someone doesn't agree with. Is the Catholic church a cult in your view? It was never my intention to get involved in defending JW's on this forum but I can smell a double standard a mile away. Why aren't you on your soap box railing against all the other religions you disagree with? The number of children that have died because their parents refused them blood transfusions is a drop in the bucket compared to all the children that have died in Wars sponsored by the "Christian" churches. In case you forgot, the two biggest wars the world has ever seen was fought mainly among nations claiming to be Christian. Also, if it escaped your notice the slaughter that took place in Rwanda mainly involved Christian killing Christian. Care to guess how many children died there? And of course let's not forget that war in the former Yugoslavia where the Christian Serbs engaged in ethic cleansing. How many children did they slaughter with the blessing of their clergy? And how about all the starving children in poor nations where the Catholic church forbids birth control? The hands of the "Christian" churches are so covered with blood I'm surprised that JW's would even register on your radar screen.
You previously made the blunder of claiming JW's believe in hell and now you make another blunder in claiming JW's believe only 144,000 will be saved. The rest of your rant about eating meat, swallowing blood from biting one's tongue or a nose bleed is so ridiculous I won't waste my time on it. I hope this thread gets closed so we can dispense with this nonsense.
Comment by Jack — April 27, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
April 28th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Something very important I forgot to mention. If a JW child needs a blood transfusion and the parents refuse to give permission then the hospital will get a court order and a blood transfusion will be administered to the child. So those claiming that JW children are dying because of their parents religious belief don't know what they are talking about.
I find it interesting that no one here is complaining about the Christian scientists. They reject all medical treatment and rely on God to heal them.
Comment by Jack — April 28, 2006 @ 12:51 am
April 28th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Ethel: "You're right, they are a deadly cult."
And what do you call the religion that gave us the crusades and the inquisition? You know, the one that supported Hitler and Mussolini. The one whose members took part in the massacre in Rwanda. The one that forbids birth control in countries with millions of starving children. The one whose leader claims infallibility.
Comment by Jack — April 28, 2006 @ 2:58 am
April 28th, 2006 at 9:33 am
My father taught me very early in life never to put myself in between a mama bear and her cubs. That's something Ralph the JW apparently didn't learn from his parents or his church. I'm pretty sure he learned it from me.
This thread is now closed, thanks to all for the interesting back-and-forth.
Comment by Joy — April 28, 2006 @ 9:33 am
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:40 am
If ID is religion then opposition's discrimination…
At Telic Thoughts, Joy pointed out the following.
1) The Dover vs Kitzmiller trial demonstrated, to the satisfaction of many opponents of Intelligent Design, that ID is religious, not scientific…….
Trackback by Exile from GROGGS — May 2, 2006 @ 6:40 am
July 5th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
[...] Update: scordova at Uncommon Descent has discovered MikeGene's post as well. See here. Update 2: MikeGene is all over it. See here. [...]
Pingback by SUMMA PHILOSOPHIAE » Blog Archive » Stupid Reasoning and Beckwith’s Tenure Denial — July 5, 2006 @ 10:02 pm