Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 31 of 85 (203364)
04-28-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
04-16-2005 8:41 AM


So the focus of this discussion isn’t so much the weak position, but the stronger position that might be supported by evidence or perhaps falsified.
I personally think that the "weak position" is the best position for anti-evolutionists. Just for practical reasons, a strong conspiracy is going to be impossible - it would be impossible to organise a conspiracy on such a grand scale, involving professors, graduate students and undergraduates, societies and university administrative departments. One reason it would be impossible is that scientists are so damn competitive - they all want to make their name, and boy could you make a name for yourself as the whistleblower! So I think any reasonable person would reject the strong conspiracy out of hand.
But the weak conspiracy is much more difficult to reject. We know for a fact that scientists don't just "judge the ideas, not the person". For a start, it is very rare to find a double-blind peer review process. Big journals like Nature, for example, reveal the name of the author to referees during the review process. This failing is mitigated to some extent by using multiple referees, but it still at least in principle permits political judgements on the part of referees.
Nobody can deny that such political judgements play a role in determining the kind of science that takes place, and the kind of people that do it. That is why we have the Association of Women in Science, after all.
Association for Women in Science (www.awis.org) writes:
Despite advances made in science, women still hold fewer upper level positions, bring in lower wages, and face barriers and stereotypes at many levels. This affects all individuals in science and science as a whole. AWIS is a non-profit association working to promote women's activities in all fields of science, mathematic, and engineering
MIT faculty newsletter (1999) writes:
Given the tiny number of women faculty and the fact that they are essentially irreplaceable, one would have assumed that all tenured women would be treated exceptionally well-pampered, overpaid, indulged. Instead, they proved to be underpaid, to have unequal access to the resources of MIT, to be excluded from any substantive power within the University.
If an unconscious conspiracy can have this effect on women, I find it hard to reject outright the suggestion that it might also (in principle) have an effect on religious people.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 04-16-2005 8:41 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM mick has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 32 of 85 (203391)
04-28-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
04-16-2005 8:41 AM


What has happened to this forum?
At least 98% of all this seems to have decayed into destructive babbling.
The jokes have devolved. The arguments have degenerated. Its all becoming more entropic in nature.
'Conspiracy' is such a metaphysical misnomer in this thread. 'Cruel hate' is our guilt here.
{To all - See The EvC Way - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2005 02:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 04-16-2005 8:41 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 4:43 AM Philip has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 33 of 85 (203566)
04-29-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Philip
04-28-2005 1:53 PM


Re: What has happened to this forum?
Hello Philip!
I'm a bit unsure as to what's happened here - it would appear that Adminmooseus has editted what you have to say, or perhaps he just stuck the end bit on. Either way, I'm a bit taken aback: I certainly didn't want to appear as a "cruel hater" with this thread! It's very unfortunate if it has come across as facetious or disrespectful - it wasn't intended in any such mean-spirited way.
I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say about this subject - namely, the attitudes of many people that there is some kind of conspiracy of pro-evolution scientists. From your response, am I to take it that you don't believe a very significant number of people seriously subscribe to this view?
I personally find this view quite hard to take seriously, but I'm quite happy to accept that maybe I'm wrong and that maybe there really is such a conspiracy. It is, after all, a view shared by many, and there are reasons to believe this that they consider convincing.
I have a problem with the "conspiracy" view however.
The main reason I'm frustrated by this conspiracy idea is this - because it seems to provide a simple way of avoiding the actual debate; attacking all scientists in an ad hominem fashion, if you like.
What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 04-28-2005 1:53 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 12:05 PM Tusko has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 34 of 85 (203575)
04-29-2005 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by mick
04-28-2005 11:58 AM


I think that's a very good point. I expect scientists can be - and are - biased when it comes to reviewing papers. Wouldn't it be cool if they did double-blind peer-reviewing? It would be interesting to see what direction the science took then, and demographically, who was doing the talking.
Do they not do it because its too much bother, do you think?
Other than double-blinding (if that's the correct term), can you think of any other ways in which bias, conscious or unconscious, could be addressed? Surely its in everyone's interest to address the problem of bias and percieved bias.
(Incidentally, I thought that it would be more interesting to talk about the big, superscary conspiracy of all evil scientists, because there is a vocal minority who seem to support this idea. They have a published literature, which can be very interesting. The weaker position, though far more likely to be a possibility, is a bit harder to pin down and say anything much about.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mick, posted 04-28-2005 11:58 AM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 6:11 AM Tusko has replied
 Message 37 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 12:48 PM Tusko has replied
 Message 38 by mick, posted 04-29-2005 1:04 PM Tusko has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 35 of 85 (203578)
04-29-2005 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tusko
04-29-2005 5:43 AM


The problem is that there is usually a lot of information contained in the paper in the form of the direction of the research the way the research is framed and the style of writing which may well tip off a reviewer who is familiar with the submitting author's work.
It is probably impossible to ensure true anonymity for the submitting author, all you can do is remove any explicit identification. Even with reviewers many people believe they can identify who has written some of the review comments they receive, they may be wrong of course but they believe they can.
Any specific individuals bias is at least attempted to be addressed by usually sending an article out to review by several people, say 3. 3 is a good number becasue then you are likely to get a majority view on the paper, and if 1 biased reviewer unfairly slates it there are 2 others to compensate and the editor can make a judgement based on all of the reviews. Biased editors may present rather more of a problem.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by EZscience, posted 04-29-2005 1:50 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 44 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 5:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 36 of 85 (203651)
04-29-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tusko
04-29-2005 4:43 AM


Conspirators
(Thanks for your kind reply. Note, I don't have time for grammar checkers now)
When I mentioned 'cruel hate' I was thinking not of you, but of undergraduate university (AL UAH and UAB) experiences I had in the late 80's. These were bio. professors and their pseudo-scientific texts.
Absurd pseudo-scientific paradigms prevailed, (something) like: "Ontogeny recapitulates Ontogeny Phylogeny", "Fish-gill vestiges exist in human embyros", "Parallel evolution (marsupial reflecting mammal)", "Man has indeed evolved from stardust", (a biochemistry text), "Amniotic egg 'inventions'", "Micro- is equivalent to macro- evolution", etc.
Meanwhile Physiology and Bio Professors voiced out disgust for Judaeo-Christian beliefs. One forcefully and coldly spoke of "mechanisms" to the point of being dis-heartening toward his students. The same hated pre-meds (myself) and persecuted those that sought his help if they expressed any Creationist thoughts whatsoever.
Is this conspiracy? To me its merely 'cold/cruel hate'. Most seemed unconscious of their hate, let alone conspiracy, albeit they did 'gang up' (if you will) in their pretentiously scientific persecutions against Judaeo-Christian ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 4:43 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:26 AM Philip has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 37 of 85 (203667)
04-29-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tusko
04-29-2005 5:43 AM


Another important (potential) source of bias is when you apply for a big research grant from NSF or similar funding agency. Not only is your name revealed, but you also know exactly who is going to be judging your research proposal. So it's very much a game, with the applicant trying to push the right buttons of the comittee who make the funding decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:06 AM mick has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 38 of 85 (203673)
04-29-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tusko
04-29-2005 5:43 AM


I just remembered about the media furore over Michael Dini, who was sued (or at least threatened with suit by a creationist group) for refusing to give letters of recommendation to students who do not accept humans arose by evolutionary mechanisms.
On his website, he gives an explanation of his decisions over whether to write a letter of recommendation or not. (I've pasted it at the bottom of this post).
This was portrayed as a conspiracy by creationists, though it's worth bearing in mind that Dini did it very openly, and explained his procedure on a public website. I personally believe that Dini gives a good justification for his actions, and his openness and honesty on the matter is admirable.
Michael Dini (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini) writes:
Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:
Criterion 1
You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.
Criterion 2
I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:
1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions.
2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me.
3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only).
4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.
Criterion 3
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.
The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tusko, posted 04-29-2005 5:43 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:02 AM mick has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 39 of 85 (203688)
04-29-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Wounded King
04-29-2005 6:11 AM


You have pretty much got it right.
As an author of a number of papers myself (and an editor), I can tell you that the process, in my discpline at least, is pretty fair.
As an author, you end up feeling unfairly treated or criticized by some reviewers, but you often have a chance to demonstrate to the referee that they are wrong or laboring under a false assumption. A biased editor is a much bigger problem. My advice? Submit to a different journal.
As to the 'comspiracy of scientists' allegation alluded to by Tusko, it is just not a tenable concept. It seems quite tenable to many of those commited to theistic creationist beliefs, though, because they themselves are often part of *real* conspiracy of non-scientist religious fanatics to discredit evolutionary theory any way they can in order to support their precarious belief structure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 6:11 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 5:49 AM EZscience has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 85 (203797)
04-29-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
04-16-2005 8:41 AM


If you want to understand why creationists often voice the concern that there is an overarching conspiracy of atheist scientists, then you have to put yourself in their shoes and walk for a mile. Simple as that.
Chances are that most non-creationists can't or won't do that. So I will do it for you.
Remember first that, as a creationist, they believe in God. That also means they believe in the devil as an entity. Scripture says the devil is at work in the world...and can influence the world from the spiritual realm. The goals of the devil are to a) lead the believers away from God and b) keep the unbelievers from believing in God.
So when a creationist percieves an agenda that seems to accomodate the goals of the devil, or encounters bias in the schools, in the media, and in the laboratory he/she is likely to chalk it up to a common cause. The simplest explanation for a common cause, in thier mind, is the devil influencing events through mortal pawns.
I think it is a logical conclusion from their point of view. However, I think a more likely explanation for the conspiracy is the bias and bigotry we all have as humans.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-29-2005 07:38 PM
This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-29-2005 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 04-16-2005 8:41 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 04-29-2005 7:57 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 49 by Tusko, posted 04-30-2005 6:45 AM Limbo has replied
 Message 51 by nator, posted 05-01-2005 12:18 PM Limbo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 85 (203817)
04-29-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Limbo
04-29-2005 7:08 PM


If you want to understand why creationists often voice the concern that there is an overarching conspiracy of atheist scientists, then you have to put yourself in their shoes and walk for a mile. Simple as that.
Chances are that most athiests can't or won't do that. So I will do it for you.
You make the classic mistake of thinking that the opposition to Creationism comes from atheists. Not so. The most vocal opposition to Creationism is from Christian Churches. That's why every major Christian denomination in the US opposes teaching Creationism and supports teaching the TOE.
Strict adherence to the various creation stories in Genesis is not just BAD Science, it's Worse Theology.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 7:08 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 8:36 PM jar has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 85 (203833)
04-29-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
04-29-2005 7:57 PM


Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I've edited my post to correct it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 04-29-2005 7:57 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 04-29-2005 8:54 PM Limbo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 85 (203839)
04-29-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Limbo
04-29-2005 8:36 PM


When you make an edit to your post that makes major changes in the content it's always polite to indicate what was changed and where it was changed. One way is by adding AbE (Added by Edit) comments at the bottom of the modified message showing what happened.
But you still have one other issue to deal with. Most Creationists still accept the TOE. It is only a very small subset (primarily Fundamental Christians) of creationists that have any problem with the TOE.
There is no conspiricy. There are a small group of people who are acting in a very psychotic and paranoid manner that support Creationism, but so far they have all been totally unable to provide any reasoning or evidence to support their position. They are very good at whining, often VERY good at public oration and exposition, but have NO evidence, no support, nothing except assertions and Oratory to support their position.
They do believe that there is a conspiricy, but the reality is far more hilarity. When they put forth as their leading lights Dr. Dino, the Discovery Institute, ICR or CRS the only possible reaction is one of hilarity.
GOD gave man brains. He expects us to use them and not check them at the door.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 8:36 PM Limbo has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 44 of 85 (203898)
04-30-2005 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Wounded King
04-29-2005 6:11 AM


Thanks for that, its really interesting.
Because I'm not really familiar with the process, I'm just groping around here.
I guess in addition to whether a reviewer can guess the author of an anonymous paper, there's also the question of whether they are expressing orthodox or unorthodox views in that paper. If the person is expressing way out views and seem to be a total nut, this could easily bias a reviewer. Consceivably, something really great could be missed perhaps?
I suppose this isn't really such a problem when you can attempt to repeat any wacky results they might have got through experimentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 6:11 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 45 of 85 (203900)
04-30-2005 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by EZscience
04-29-2005 1:50 PM


Hi EZscience!
I haven't met you before, thanks to contributing to this thread. (Also, fantastic avatar, though I don't think I'd like to meet it on a dark night).
I guess the point that you make - namely, that there can't be any credibility to conspiracy stories of this nature - could be interpreted by a conspiracy believer as close-mindedness, or even as sinister conivance with the Dark Scientific Cabals of Doom. That's not to say that I give much stock to that belief myself, I hasten to add. But that kind of "take it or leave it" attitude (although perfectly reasonable) ends up making life even easier for those who don't want to engage with science.
I guess the purpose of this thread was to try to see of someone ingenious could think of a way of pinning down the conspiracy theory to interogate it and evaluate it - and to do so in a way that conspiracy creationists would have at least some difficulty dismissing. I guess if they have proper faith in their beliefs, then they shouldn't be afraid to have them tested.
That's why I'm particularly hoping for contributions from conspiracy creationists that might offer the kind of evidence that they would need to falsify the belief that there is a conscious conspiracy.
I realise that its a bit fanciful, because whether its true or not, it offers a psychological comfort to those who believe it, and as a result might be next to impossible to falsify in any meaningful way.
But I thought it might be fun to try anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by EZscience, posted 04-29-2005 1:50 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by EZscience, posted 05-02-2005 9:19 AM Tusko has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024