Comments for AcademicFreedomBlog

Comment on The Language of Life by Brian Barker

Brian Barker — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:12:38 +0000

I like neither Na’vi nor Klingon, as the future global language. Especially when you have to dress up for it

We also need a future international language. One which is easy to learn, as well !

And that’s not English! Esperanto? Let’s move forward

At least Bill Shatner speaks Esperanto. Have a look at http://eurotalk.com/en/store/learn/esperanto or http://www.lernu.net

Comment on Climategate and the Survival of the Politically Correct by jallen

jallen — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:31:38 +0000

Regarding perversion of the peer-review process, Dr Philip Lloyd, a coordinating lead for the IPCC wrote this on 11/23/09:

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726

“I was a co-ordinating lead author [or the IPCC]… [I]t gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.

The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists’ work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.

However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.

The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.

The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.”

Comment on Baraminology and pseudoscience by caged vole

caged vole — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:43:58 +0000

Thank you (for the post, not the comments)
I’m way behind on this exchange but having happened on it have been drawn on by the sheer interest (having no expertise at all). I found that quite fascinating and extremely instructive. Your logic and clarity are also a real pleasure!

Comment on Academic Freedom, Sometimes by caged vole

caged vole — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:17:55 +0000

Hey there Dave, you again?
- It’s getting tiresome to repeat this too, but I’m afraid ID hasn’t been shown to be “failed science and pseudoscience”. It’s only been declared to be so (and by those with a clear motive and agenda) which is by no means the same thing.
Now, brace yourself — yes of course the controversy should most definitely be taught. What could be a better way of sharpening the minds of the rising generation? If you’re right about it, you have nothing to fear. Even if you’re wrong you have nothing to fear except the chance to replace error with truth.
No controversy? Don’t be absurd. What else makes the blogosphere go round?

Comment on Agenda-Driven science by Dave R

Dave R — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:28:46 +0000

Not paranoid. Just confused as to why comments take days or weeks to appear here…

Perhaps the reason that there is not much traffic on this blog is because it is difficult to carry on useful conversations with that sort of time lag.

Just a thought.

Comment on Agenda-Driven science by caged vole

caged vole — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:27:17 +0000

Dave, you sound a bit paranoid

Comment on Agenda-Driven science by Dave

Dave — Wed, 20 May 2009 01:17:41 +0000

I guess you are entitled to censor comments on your own blog. But does it help you sleep at night, knowing that most good ideas are forged in the crucible of criticism, and most bad ideas need to be protected from that heat and light?

I’d appreciate it if you posted my comments. But I can certainly understand why you don’t…

Comment on Agenda-Driven science by Dave

Dave — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:14:19 +0000

Isn’t it amazing that a sociologist can single-handledly see through the smokescreen of the global science conspiracy behind both global climate change and evolution? One can only speculate what would happen if the same sociologist concentrated on learning his own discipline as well!

Comment on Academic Freedom, Sometimes by Dave R

Dave R — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:23:37 +0000

As far as I can tell none of these people are advocates of either failed science (like creationism) or pseudoscience (like ID). It seems that they have been banned due to their opinions about politics. That’s regrettable, but this is not analogous to situations where the ACLU takes up the battle to keep failed science and pseudoscience out of science classrooms.

The difference between politics and science is that opinions are a standard currency in politics, but in science you have to deal with facts. It’s getting tiresome to repeat this, but science has shown that neither phlogiston, nor geocentrism, nor astrology, nor creationism/ID are consistent with known facts.

If you have new facts, let’s hear ‘em. If you still just have opinions, don’t call it science. And please, please, please don’t argue that it should be taught in science classes in public schools!

Comment on The Utility of Darwinism by Dave R

Dave R — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:47:40 +0000

Evolutionary theory predicts common descent. Common descent predicts common genetic mechanisms in all related organisms. Any molecular biologist anywhere in the world can take a new coding sequence or an novel gene and insert it into another organism with the expectation that it will be transcribed and translated properly, based on that hypothesis of common descent. That expectation universally comes true. Every time. Boringly consistent.

This everyday example will not result in the word evolution or evolves being part of the abstract or body of the publication. Yet that work absolutely depended on evolutionary theory, contra Skell.

The theory of evolution, as Dobzhansky told us many decades ago, is the common thread that unites biological research today. It is so common that biologists count on it being true without even thinking about it explicitly, as in the case above. They can count on it being true because it is true. If you don’t think so, give us a better predictive framework.