Is the Religification of Science Damaging Its Progress?

[PIT2]

I think this is a great example of the religification of science. It is the claim of some scientist in response to hearing that a pro-ID scientist was denied tenure at Iowa State University:

"I would have voted to deny him tenure," says Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park. "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/worlds_premiere_scientific_jou.html

When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID), so he understands science perfectly well. It then follows that above quote demonstrates a distorted, religious view of science.

I think people who turn science into a religion may believe that they are supporting science, but are actually damaging it. Luckily in Europe(which is where i live), science seems to be less infected with such religious ideas, but of course this may change in the future, since religions can quickly spread.

 

[Moridin]

Individual Universities can deny application to anyone. A college could deny the application of a person who thinks that the Holocaust never happened if they choose to without jeopardizing anything.

Science is not a democracy. Science is not about letting everyone have their own say about their personal speculation. Science is about what the evidence says.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Science is about what the evidence says.

The hypothesis: "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
The evidence: When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID).
The science: Hypothesis rejected.

 

[Moridin]

So?

A person who does not use scientific methodology has no reason to claim equal rights with one who do. Just because one were successful in the past does not mean that you can get away with all sorts of unscientific behavior in the present.

 

[Evo]

I think this is a great example of the religification of science. It is the claim of some scientist in response to hearing that a pro-ID scientist was denied tenure at Iowa State University:



When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID), so he understands science perfectly well. It then follows that above quote demonstrates a distorted, religious view of science.

I think people who turn science into a religion may believe that they are supporting science, but are actually damaging it. Luckily in Europe(which is where i live), science seems to be less infected with such religious ideas, but of course this may change in the future, since religions can quickly spread.

Your link is from the inventors of intelligent design - "the Discovery Institute" and is highly biased & slanted. I wouldn't believe too much of what they say.

EDIT:I knew it, Guillermo Gonzalez is Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and published a book about intelligent design - The priveleged planet. "In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery with Jay W. Richards."

He's published openly on ID and it has tarnished the University's reputation. In this case, I would agree that they are within their rights to deny tenure. Someone like Moonbear that works for a Universty could probably explain the process better.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I must complain that this thread on a sensitive issue is being hijacked. Please contain your remarks to the thesis of the OP.

 

[Evo]

Hijacked by whom and how?

 

[Kurdt]

I must complain that this thread on a sensitive issue is being hijacked. Please contain your remarks to the thesis of the OP.

Considering the original post contains a word that doesn't exist then its open to interpretation. I don't think that science is becoming dogmatic. If what Evo has said about the guy is true then I think the comments made about him were founded. I'm glad to see scientists standing up for themselves for once as well.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Hijacked by whom and how?

The OP objects to this statement:
"He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
Specifically. It is his point. He provides evidence against it. Either agree with him, or provide contradictory evidence, or disprove his evidence. But to simply paint the professor with the brush of ID is to prove the OP's larger point. Can you say that Professor Hoyle did not understand the scientific process?

I hope no one here holds both of the following views at the same time:
1. ID is not falsifiable and therefor is not science.
2. ID is false and therefor is bad science.

 

[Andre]

Anyway, intelligent design is not falsifiable and would therefore not be science in the Popperian philosophy.

edit:

Beaten by the second

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Anyway, intelligent design is not falsifiable and would therefore not be science in the Popperian philosophy.

Besides ID, are there any other views outside the realm of science that you would forbid to professors of science?

 

[D H]

"I would have voted to deny him tenure," says Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park. "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05...tific_jou.html"

When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID), so he understands science perfectly well. It then follows that above quote demonstrates a distorted, religious view of science.

Robert Parks is from Maryland, not Iowa (1675 kilometers apart, for those of you in Europe). Search far and wide enough and you will be able to find someone saying something stupid about anything.

The cited source, "evolutionnews.org" is none other than the Discovery Institute in disguise. Hardly unbiased.

Gonzalez has not received any significant grants or published any significant papers while at Iowa State. He has tarnished the university's reputation. Why should he be granted tenure?

 

[Evo]

The The Chronicle of Higher Education said of Gonzalez and the Discovery Institute's claims of discrimination "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination ... But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise." The Chronicle observed that Gonzalez had no major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant research during that time and had only one graduate student finish a dissertation.

http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm

"I believe that I fully met the requirements for tenure at ISU," said Gonzalez,[4] to which intelligent design critic PZ Myers said "Complaining that one met all the requirements is like proposing marriage, getting turned down, and then protesting that one has a good job, a nice apartment, and excellent personal hygiene. That may be true, but it's irrelevant."[5]. Gonzalez is currently appealing the decision. The University has issued a FAQ concerning the situation saying that "The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review, and his own review of the record, President Gregory Geoffroy notified Gonzalez in April that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor."[6] The Discovery Institute encouraged their followers to call and email the ISU president, Gregory Geoffroy, to pressure him into reversing the decision, resulting in over 500 messages.[3]

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/may/tenureFAQ.shtml

 

[PIT2]

Your link is from the inventors of intelligent design - "the Discovery Institute" and is highly biased & slanted. I wouldn't believe too much of what they say.

The relevant quote comes from nature (see here).

He's published openly on ID and it has tarnished the University's reputation. In this case, I would agree that they are within their rights to deny tenure.

Thats the point the ID chaps are trying to make: this could be a case of ideological/religious discrimination. The church used to have a monopoly on that.

 

[Evo]

Thats the point the ID chaps are trying to make: this could be a case of ideological/religious discrimination. The church used to have a monopoly on that.

Turns out that's not the reason for his denial of tenure, he failed to meet basic tenure criteria, see my post above.

 

[G01]

I honestly think that this guy's tenure rejection has nothing to do with his belief in intelligent design. It seems to me this guy isn't getting tenure because he didn't do his job. He didn't publish, he only had one graduate student finish a dissertation, and had no major grants.

Sure, you can say in the past he had a lot of publications...but that's like getting a job and not doing any work and then telling your boss he can't fire you because you did a lot of work in your previous job. It doesn't work like that.

ID proponent or not...this man does not deserve tenure.

 

[D H]

The "relevant quote" is from someone over 1600 kilometers away. Not very relevant. The relevant facts are that Gonzalez has not brought in any significant research projects to ISU, has only one graduate student at ISU, has not made any significant publications while at ISU, and has received negative recommendations at every annual review at ISU.

Tenure is not a right; it has to be earned. Tenure spots are a scarce resource.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Turns out that's not the reason for his denial of tenure.

Is this thread about the denial of tenure, or is it about Professor Parks' reaction to it?

 

[Evo]

Is this thread about the denial of tenure, or is it about Professor Parks' reaction to it?

Looks to me it's about his denial of tenure. That's what the link the OP posted is ranting about.

Since it's already been shown that the biased rant from the Discovery Institute is baseless, I guess this thread should be locked since the OP issue has been shown to be baseless?

 

[D H]

How are the remarks of someone in a completely different university and a completely different field relevant? Give me any controversial subject and I can find someone important who said something stupid about that subject.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Considering the original post contains a word that doesn't exist then its open to interpretation.

The OED contains the word religionize, probably the OP should have used "religionization". Perhaps a linguist would point out that the attachment of "ify" and "ification" to a noun is a common practice. If I'm not wrong, the technical term for it is suffixification.

 

[PIT2]

Turns out that's not the reason for his denial of tenure, he failed to meet basic tenure criteria, see my post above.

The opening post concerned the unfounded claim that Gonzales doesn't understand the scientific proces.

But as for Gonzales' credentials:

In addition to that criteria, Gonzalez's department of astronomy and physics sets a benchmark for tenure candidates to author at least 15 peer-reviewed journal articles of quality. Gonzalez said he submitted 68, of which 25 have been written since he arrived at ISU in 2001.
http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=18333457&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554432&rfi=6

According to his own department's standards, to be promoted to associate professor (with tenure),

"excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals."

So how many refereed articles has Gonzalez published? Ten? Twelve? Fifteen? Twenty? Actually, he has published 68 articles in refereed journals, thus exceeding his own department's normal standard for research excellence by 350%!
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/angry_astronomer_provides_grea.html#more

A distinguished science professor at a major American university has weighed in on Iowa State University's denial of tenure to pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, expressing astonishment at the result. According to Dr. Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University:

I went to the Web of Science citation index which is the authority on citations. Only journal papers, not conference papers, are indexed. There are lots of Prof. Gonzalez's papers listed. My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure. The number of citations varies with discipline and autocitations are included in the tally, but this is a LOT of citations for an Assistant Professor. A lot.

The Iowa State U. Astronomy department is here. Their big star is Lee Anne Willson, University Professor. A University Professor is a rank more prestigious than a full Professor. She is their star. Her top two papers are cited 99 and 86 times. And she has been at this for 33 years.

And then there's Steven D. Kawaler, a full Professor who is the Current Program Coordinator for astronomy. He has a nice citation record with tops of 243 and 178.

There may be reasons I don't understand for denying Prof. Gonzalez tenure, but scholarship is absolutely not one of them.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/science_professor_expresses_as.html

 

[Evo]

The opening post concerned the unfounded claim that Gonzales doesn't understand the scientific proces.

But as for Gonzales' credentials:

This is all from the Discovery Institute, not a credible source. Please find something from a credible academic source.

 

[out of whack]

Thats the point the ID chaps are trying to make: this could be a case of ideological/religious discrimination. The church used to have a monopoly on that.

It's actually an interesting angle to suggest that he was denied tenure based on his religious belief. But there's a technical problem. The complaint might work if he had written about creationism instead of ID. Writing about the former might have shown religious faith (since creationism is religious in nature). But writing in support of some debunked pseudo-science (which is what ID is) shows that he failed in the critical application of science.

...and of course that wasn't even the reason in the first place as Evo has shown.

 

[Gokul43201]

From PIT's earlier quote:

According to his own department's standards, to be promoted to associate professor (with tenure),

"excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals."

So how many refereed articles has Gonzalez published? Ten? Twelve? Fifteen? Twenty? Actually, he has published 68 articles in refereed journals, thus exceeding his own department's normal standard for research excellence by 350%!

That's an outright lie! He did not produce 68 "good quality" papers based on work done at ISU. The Discovery Institute author is clearly misrepresenting the case.

 

[Chi Meson]

The hypothesis: "He has established that he does not understand the scientific process."
The evidence: When one looks into the background of this pro-ID scientist, one sees that he has published many peer reviewed papers (not on ID).
The science: Hypothesis rejected.

counterpoint:

Just because he has followed the scientific process does not prove he understands the process.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Just because he has followed the scientific process does not prove he understands the process.

Good point. Well, pretty weak point actually. But Parks' thesis is that he does NOT understand the process. What is the evidence for that?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

debunked pseudo-science.

Did you get a load of message #9 in this thread?

 

[PIT2]

This is all from the Discovery Institute, not a credible source. Please find something from a credible academic source.

In my other post i provided a link to nature. U can forget my previous quotes from discovery institute. Here is a link to an academic source:
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/isu.html

Another source where one can check Gonzales publication history is the "Web of Science citation index".

Either way, i am not claiming Gonzales was denied tenure because he is pro-ID, but i do think it should be investigated.

 

[Huckleberry]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508" is a link that explains some of the ridicule and punishment that people in the scientific community have endured because of their personal beliefs, regardless of whether they actually taught that belief or not. Gonzales is mentioned about 7m20s into the 13m discussion. I found it interesting.

 

[PIT2]

Writing about the former might have shown religious faith (since creationism is religious in nature). But writing in support of some debunked pseudo-science (which is what ID is) shows that he failed in the critical application of science.

Wasnt ID declared to be religious by some judge in america?

 

[Gokul43201]

Good point. Well, pretty weak point actually. But Parks' thesis is that he does NOT understand the process. What is the evidence for that?

Does the OP provide the entire quote from Parks? Does it link to an interview which explores Parks' reasons for making his statement? With just a single sentence excerpt, how are we to judge the basis for Parks' opinion? It may have been from something Parks' read in Gonzales' book; it may have been from a conversation that Parks had with Gonzales; there may have been a gazillion reasons for Parks to arrive at his conclusion.

Providing an unreferenced, contextually lacking, single-sentence excerpt of Parks' statement is what is off-topic to the point the OP is trying to make.

 

[PIT2]

Providing an unreferenced, contextually lacking, single-sentence excerpt of Parks' statement is what is off-topic to the point the OP is trying to make.

U can read the full story in nature, but its not for free i think.

 

[Evo]

U can read the full story in nature, but its not for free i think.

From going to your "link" it's a "news" item, not an article and it's titled "Darwin sceptic says views cost tenure". It sounds like they are just passing on the Discovery Institute's version of what they want people to hear.

 

[Gokul43201]

There isn't even a link or citation to the original article in Nature Magazine. Without at least that much, there's really no way any of us can comment on the rationale behind Parks' statement. Does someone have a link to the article in Nature?

And do you want this discussion to be about the reasons behind Parks' statement, or the reasons behind tenure rejection, or something else?

 

[PIT2]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5007508" is a link that explains some of the ridicule and punishment that people in the scientific community have endured because of their personal beliefs, regardless of whether they actually taught that belief or not. Gonzales is mentioned about 7m20s into the 13m discussion. I found it interesting.

Yes that certainly was a disgraceful situation. Of course science is all just people at work, and people share many not-so-pleasant characterics, but its sad to watch it happen anyway.

 

[PIT2]

From going to your "link" it's a "news" item, not an article and it's titled "Darwin sceptic says views cost tenure".

Its not a news "item", its a news "article"

It sounds like they are just passing on the Discovery Institute's version of what they want people to hear.

Could be, though i doubt that nature suddenly started spreading discovery institutes views.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And do you want this discussion to be about the reasons behind Parks' statement, or the reasons behind tenure rejection, or something else?

It is my opinion that the answer to this question is in the original post and subsequent posts by the original poster.

 

[Evo]

It is my opinion that the answer to this question is in the original post and subsequent posts by the original poster.

So you're saying this entire thread is to discuss one unrelated individual's remark about the tenure decision, which by the way was not involved in the tenure decision? So this is pointless?

Could be, though i doubt that nature suddenly started spreading discovery institutes views

I agree, the part we cannot see and that was ommited from the Discovery Institute's page may have had the debunking.

 

[PIT2]

There isn't even a link or citation to the original article in Nature Magazine. Without at least that much, there's really no way any of us can comment on the rationale behind Parks' statement. Does someone have a link to the article in Nature?

Heres the link:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=I+wou...&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a

And do you want this discussion to be about the reasons behind Parks' statement, or the reasons behind tenure rejection, or something else?

The discussion was meant to be about the religification (or religionisation or something) of science, something that is also known as scientism. The quote in the opening post was an example of how such statements reflect this.

 

[Chi Meson]

Good point. Well, pretty weak point actually. But Parks' thesis is that he does NOT understand the process. What is the evidence for that?

Have papers published is neither proof for nor against the claim that he "understands the scientific process." That was my point.

And regarding another tangent:
there are only two people who may decide whether or not a thread has strayed beyond it's vague parameters, the original poster and the mentor.

 

[PIT2]

Have papers published is neither proof for nor against the claim that he "understands the scientific process." That was my point.

Can someone publish papers without applying the scientific process?

 

[D H]

What exactly does the scientific process mean, particularly with respect to a non-experimental science such as astronomy?

 

[Evo]

Can someone publish papers without applying the scientific process?

It would depend where they were published. Certainly not papers published supporting ID to places that would accept such a thing.

 

[PIT2]

It would depend where they were published. Certainly not papers published supporting ID to places that would accept such a thing.

He didnt publish any ID papers and it would be breaking news if he did.

 

[Evo]

He didnt publish any ID papers and it would be breaking news if he did.

Guillermo Gonzalez is Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and published a book about intelligent design - The priveleged planet. "In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery with Jay W. Richards."

 

[Thrice]

Someday you guys will have to explain to me

1) why the crap posts get so many replies.
2) why they're not locked.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So you're saying this entire thread is to discuss one unrelated individual's remark about the tenure decision, which by the way was not involved in the tenure decision? So this is pointless?

Yes, the entire thread is to discuss Park's remark. It is pointless to the topic which you apparently wish to discuss, but not pointless to the OP.

 

[PIT2]

Guillermo Gonzalez is Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and published a book about intelligent design - The priveleged planet. "In 2004 he co-authored The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery with Jay W. Richards."

The point was: he didnt publish any ID papers, thus the 70 or so papers he did publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, were not about ID. He wrote a book though.

 

[PIT2]

Someday you guys will have to explain to me

1) why the crap posts get so many replies.
2) why they're not locked.

A careful observer will notice that many rational people suddenly abandon rationality when it comes to ID, creationism or religious issues.

There is a famous quote that goes something like this:

"When fighting the enemy, be careful not to become the enemy."