Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
June 14, 2011 at 9:59am
Watch this--shot this morning--and tell me if you think this situation is healthy.
People who want to explore these ideas are as afraid of reprisal as anyone I've ever met in Turkey. (Excessively so, I'd say: It's not as if anyone is going to lock them up. But obviously, something is keeping them from speaking freely. And that cannot be good for any of us.)
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Stephen Dawson:
Second, the premises of ID have been comprehensively dealt with. Each example -- eg. bacterial flagella -- put up has been knocked down with a plausible developmental path. · Jun 14 at 6:29am
I'll put your comments to Paul directly and you can hear what he has to say in response. I've interviewed a few others today, too, so stay tuned. I'm uploading videos now. The Internet's a bit slow, but they'll be up before the end of the day.
Jun '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Claire - If I may be so bold, can you ask Dr. Nelson if he still believes the Earth to be only 6,000 years old or if he has since modified his position on this? Thanks.
Oct '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
This.
Indeed, the average academic faculty makes the late, unlamented Soviet Politburo look like an oasis of tolerance and free inquiry.
May '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
"Irreducible complexity" is very similar to one of the central arguments in arguing for anthropogenic global warming. The argument runs that the increase in temperature is so marked in the 4th quarter of the 20th century that no other explanation can be conceived than that man caused it - it is so exceptional. Unfortunately the same rate of change of temperature is also seen during two decades in the first half of the 20th century, and during the 19th. "Exceptionality" in temperature increase can be a moveable feast.
Similarly, the fossil record has been interpreted to show vast differences in atmospheric CO2, coupled with very small, and uncorrelated changes in surface temperature. But, apparently, we ought not to trust the geology.
What I don't understand is why it should be those who mistrust the theory of AGW that are compared with creationists, when these two common characteristics of young-earth creationism are shared by the proponents of concern about the risks of AGW.
May '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Claire, I don't suppose there are any geologists at that conference? My father was a geologist. He explained to me how the theory of plate tectonics was still generally laughed away as nonsense while he was being taught geology in college, yet it was taught in my 8th-grade general science course as obvious and essential. The "consensus" swung greatly and quickly in that case.
Can working scientists today, at that conference or on Ricochet, recall any examples of heated and close-minded consensus which compare to the intensity of the present Darwinian evolution and AGW culture?
Mar '11
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Which is why it is so important to support existing conservative colleges and establish new ones. Trying to "reclaim" existing institutions is folly.
Jan '11
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Science redux: "But, it does move."
Mar '11
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
The difficulty of this debate is that both sides are right (and wrong).
Yes, academic scientists are clannish and are too often not tolerant of dissenting ideas. At the same time, ID proponents have yet to bring arguments which would be able to stand up to the rigorous scientific scrutiny they demand, even if they could get a fair hearing.
Both sides seem to fall into the fallacy that because the other side is wrong, this is proof that they are correct.
Comparing ID to AGW -- I love it!
Mar '11
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Aaron Miller:
Can working scientists today, at that conference or on Ricochet, recall any examples of heated and close-minded consensus which compare to the intensity of the present Darwinian evolution and AGW culture?
A good recent example is the debate over the link between HIV and AIDS.
Because HIV is a somewhat strange virus, the first evidence that it might cause AIDS was not convincing for everyone. Several serious scientists were unsatisfied with this hypothesis and began voicing their doubts, which resonated among frustrated activists and many skeptical of the established science community. Similar to the ID movement, their arguments were based more on criticism of the consensus theory (that HIV causes AIDS) than in demonstrating direct proof of their alternative theories. Nonetheless, the movement was for a time quite large, with major conferences, donors, etc., and the establishment community reacted by completely shunning the denialists.
In this case, the establishment scientists seem to have been correct. I don't want to argue that the same will hold in the evolution/ID/creation debate, but just point out that the establishment scientific community can indeed get it right sometimes.
Jul '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
The problem is Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species isn't really a Theory, scientifically understood, at all. How many generations of drosophila have been been observed in biological laboratories? Has any one of them turned into a fish?
It's not like we're talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics where you can make a million observations about the Law each and every day.
Or theories in physics which have accepted contrary evidence and adjusted accordingly (the Theory of the Atom).
The "Theory of Evolution" explains all and is rigid. We can explain flagellates! We can explain the narwhal, the kiwi (a bird that's a mammal!) and the platypus! Just give us another hit...
It sort of reminds me of another "theory" that is impervious to criticism: Global Climate Change.
The problem with these young academics is they know this folderol isn't science. Scientists should be skeptics. Some are and would be punished accordingly in the academy.
As Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, the academy is turning into a guild, where only those of the faith (and credentials) are allowed in. As someone mentioned above, the struggle for power exists as well.
Nov '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
Clearly, if you had to bet, all else equal, one should bet on experts being more right than non-experts. This means, in general, deferring to scientific consensus.
Historically, however, we know the scientific consensus can be wrong. Still, it's often right to make it rational to trust scientists, all else equal.
So, what makes all else unequal?
I would like to suggest that state support for science is one factor. The funding biases scientific practice in favour of supporting a politically favored hypothesis. Incentives corrupt; and massive state incentives corrupt absolutely.
This applies in the case of global warming, and in the case of HIV-AIDS, both of which I am skeptical of. Both may still be true; but the grounds for believing both have been systematically compromised. In neither case is the assertion of incontrovertible fact be justifed.
Nov '10
Re: Why Are Young American Scientists Too Afraid to Appear in This Video?
The comments by Nick Stuart and Anon make me think it's worth mentioning that the Bible has always been on the right side of scientific controversies.
While doctors in the Middle Ages were draining the blood of their patients, the Bible states clearly, "The life is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:11)
When people believed that the earth is flat, the Bible reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)
Even Galileo believed that his heliocentric view of the solar system was compatible with scripture, because the passages that speak of the permanence or immovability of the earth are poetic, not meant as fact, and written from a terrestrial perspective, from which it would appear that the sun rises and sets.
People within the religious system have been bullies, and have punished those they considered dissenters, such as Galileo, but Scripture has always been clear. And correct.