Amanda: He published something as fact that he “knew” was fiction. That fits your definition of fraud, no? The point is not that what he thinks is fiction *is* actually fact, it’s that he published something *he* knows to be false as fact in order to get a degree.

—

That’s an interesting point, Amanda… Seeing as I’ve already changed my mind on my former position (thanks again Irishman ), I agree with you completely. The me before Irishman’s post would not have agreed with you, however, because I was going by a very literal/legal interpretation of the word “fraud.” What can I say? I was wrong.

Amanda also said: It would be like me going to Liberty University to get a PhD in young Earth science, knowing it to be false. Yes, I could do it, but it would wrong. (and it would make me feel dirty)

It’d make me feel dirty, too (blech).

You’re wrong.

The guy is free to do research anywhere he wants. He chose to do it at an established university- which unfortunately for him requires that the research be evidence (not fantasy) based.

He was free to study at a non-accredited Biblical institution which would have let him explore his Biblical fantasies as much as he wanted.

Not sure where the Nazi persecution comes into it. If you don’t base your beliefs on evidence- then don’t go looking for a degree which requires evidence-based research.

I’m not sure why I’m replying to your comment.

The guy in question was free to put any theory he liked in his thesis. However he knew that he couldn’t successfully defend the Biblical account to his committee.

That’s not due to any prejudice on part of the committee. That’s because there’s no evidence to support the Biblical account (because it’s false).

The upshot is that the student lied in order to get a PhD. He wrote a thesis he believed to be untrue just so they would pass him.

By any sensible, everyday standard of integrity he doesn’t have any. Only some serious mental gymnastics can allow him to tell himself that he did no wrong, that speaking and worse still publishing what HE believes to be lies is not a big no no (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD)

And what’s so hypocritical about it? From his point of view, perhaps the present academic system is an evil enemy. Suppose any of us found ourselves confined within a Nazi concentration camp. The Nazis would be the enemy. Would any one of us have any compunction against lying to the Nazis, telling them whatever was necessary, in order to make progress toward the ultimate goal of liberation? Just because we think Ross is knuckleheaded for believing in YEC doesn’t mean that he lacks personal integrity. (He certainly MIGHT lack integrity, but this whole affair thus far doesn’t tell me such a thing.)

He published something as fact that he “knew” was fiction. That fits your definition of fraud, no? The point is not that what he thinks is fiction *is* actually fact, it’s that he published something *he* knows to be false as fact in order to get a degree. It would be like me going to Liberty University to get a PhD in young Earth science, knowing it to be false. Yes, I could do it, but it would wrong. (and it would make me feel dirty)

That being said, I’m thinking that the point here is NOT that if creationists do the research and pass their defense etc, etc they shouldn’t be awarded a degree because they’re lying. I’m thinking that the point IS: if you genuinely believe in a particular point of view, such that you are willing to base much of your life on that belief, why would you WANT a degree stating that you produced an excellent body of work in support of a contradictory opinion? Why would you spend years putting together a body of evidence to support an idea you, in fact, thoroughly disagree with?

>“Would any Christian attend a church headed by an atheist. Even if he had great sermons?”

Actually, some of them do, they just don’t likely know it. Some clergy have some fairly sophisticated ideas about the nature and role of religion and about the “truth” value of the religious doctrines. “God” as a concept can be very allegorical. YMMV. TIWAGOS.

(TIWAGOS = Take It With A Grain Of Salt)

“Would any Christian attend a church headed by an atheist. Even if he had great sermons?”

Science is not Christianity. A research article in a journal isn’t a sermon. I’ve read papers authored by people with whom I haven’t the slightest personal familiarity. For all I know, any number of those authors might not have ANY actual confidence in the stuff which they’ve published. I-DON’T-CARE. I’m interested in the science. I, and I alone, will decide for myself if an author’s published work makes enough sense for me to buy into it. The truth or falsehood of propositions is not a function of who *says* them. I don’t execute the messenger.

I think this all amounts to just so much Territoriality. It’s as petty as fretting over whether or not to bestow upon the object called Pluto the exhalted status of planethood. It’s quite juvenile.

That he is unable/unwilling to apply that same methodology across the board in his life is not relevant. There are plenty of scientists who fit that role.

Like I said, I find the self-dishonesty amazing. I don’t understand how he can accept that level of cognative dissonance, to do research and advocate millions of years old rocks in one breath and then proclaim the Earth is only 10,000 years old in another. Unless he thinks the rocks were poofed into existence pre-aged.

I understand the concern, I understand the distaste. But I’m not convinced anything wrong has been done by granting his PhD. He apparently earned it, regardless of his personal beliefs.

Science is about utility, not truth. Theories that are useful become accepted, and perhaps extended when more useful theories come along. Or perhaps overturned.

Fundamental in that approach is the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, in opposition with the sureness of religious belief.

My presumption is that if Ross were asked, “what would it take for you to conclude that YEC is wrong?”, that he would reply, “nothing”. If that’s true, then he has failed a fundamental test for a scientist, and regardless of his research, should not be awarded the degree.

The really good scientists don’t believe in theories of Nature. Instead, they invest in them, as an employer would invest in good employees. A worker who reliably gets the job done in turn gets the boss’s confidence. When a job comes up that the worker cannot do, then the boss looks goes on a hiring expedition to find someone else who can do the job.

Furthermore, it’s none of an employer’s beeswax what the reliable employees believe on their own time. The job gets done. I can’t care less what this guy believes on his own time. What I care about is the robustness of his research. He can believe anything he wants. His published work is what it is, and is judgable independently of the author. People who cannot pry their estimate of the value of a journal article away from their opinions of the author are being childish.

Yes it could make a difference. It’s obvious Ross intends to push his religious explanation of the world on an unsuspecting public using his fraudulently obtained degree for credibility. The public isn’t going to know or care what his thesis topic was. All they’ll see are the letters prominently displayed behind his name. Unfortunately for science, there are a lot of people out there who desparately want to hear the kind of things Ross will tell them. For them, hearing it from one “expert” is all the “proof” they need.

In my mind, whether someone actually believes in the scientific method and intellectual honesty is more important than his initial work. There are lots of arguments you could make on this – a slippery slope argument, a long-term work quality argument, etc. The easiest one is as follows, super easy for zealots and “toleration experts” to understand:

If an atheist wants to be a priest (or minister, or whatever), would you let him? He performs very well on the pulpit, but if anyone talks to him afterwards he says “there is no god”. Good priest material, yes?

As for possible solution, I don’t know that there is one. The world is growing more interconnected, and it may be necessary to replace the PhD with some other system of valuation in the future. The ease with which these kinds of systems can be abused grows more deadly every year.

So a non-scientist teaches non-science in a non-science school, but has a science degree. It’s tough enough for real scientist to be taken seriously within mainstream academia, so what difference does it really make?

In what kind of Bizarro world is knowledge a ‘religious concept’?

This seems like yet another attempt to define everything which isn’t immediately mathematically provable as lying in the domain of religion.

I guess it’s not objectively provable that The Pixies were a kick-ass rock band or that Dane Cook isn’t funny. So? Does that immediately make those statements a religious question? Should I ask a priest?

The only person who is devaluing science is the guy who lied in order to obtain a Party-hard Dude (PhD).

I must admit that I don’t know how he achieves self/ research seperation, but if he can make it work, and the science is good, bully for him.

PhD examinations are not religious inquisitions. They don’t judge people’s souls. They judge the science those people do. And by all accounts, Dr. Ross does good science. What compells him to do that science is his own business, unless it compromises his work. And there is simply no data that this has occurred.

What pisses me off about the attacks on Dr. Ross are that they devalue science. To his opponents, his science doesn’t matter. Only his beliefs do. My belief is that science is more important than that.