EDITORIAL: Unsettled science

EDITORIAL: Unsettled science

There are 7 comments on the Washington Times story from Aug 28, 2013, titled EDITORIAL: Unsettled science. In it, Washington Times reports that:

The need for scientific inquiry is over, according to those who insist matters that are "settled" aren't worthy of exploration.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1 Aug 29, 2013
<cut/paste from article>
"The need for scientific inquiry is over, according to those who insist matters that are “settled” aren’t worthy of exploration. This is what passes for thoughtfulness in higher education today.

At Ball State University in Indiana, for example, anti-religion activists are irritated that physics and astronomy professor Eric Hedin presented intelligent design in his classroom as a plausible theory of origins. The basic gist was that mankind and the universe did not spring forth out of a series of wholly random events and that some higher power guided the process.

Sociologist-turned-college president Jo Ann Gora doesn’t want such a possibility ever discussed in a Ball State classroom.“Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom,” she wrote in a July 31 letter to faculty.“It is an issue of academic integrity. As I noted, the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory.”

Progress depends on challenging the conventional wisdom. Most of the ancient world looked at the sky and assumed it was obvious that the universe revolved around the Earth. In the 16th century, Copernicus said, no, the common belief was wrong and the planets, including Earth, revolve around the sun. A century later, Newton explained how gravity made it all work, which was accepted until Einstein came along with his breakthrough theory of relativity. Science never rests.

A superior court judge in the District of Columbia thinks she knows better, last month using the “settled science” principle to side with Penn State University Professor Michael E. Mann in his defamation lawsuit against pundit Mark Steyn, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Each had published material critical of Mr. Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that has been used to peddle global warming while hiding the recent decline in global temperatures. The criticism was the sort of speech that ought to be protected under the First Amendment, but Judge Natalia M. Greene doesn’t care, and the case continues next month.

Her interim ruling points out that a Penn State committee of global warming advocates agreed with Mr. Mann, and so did the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s settled, then.“Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud,” writes Judge Greene,“and none of those investigations having found [Mr. Mann‘s] work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false.” Judge Greene’s chilling conclusion is that it can be a crime to label purveyors of global warming alarmism as charlatans.

Undermining speech in the public square or the public classroom in this way is a mistake. Science isn’t settled on a lot of points, and society’s advance requires more speech, inquiry and debate, not less."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/...

<end cut/paste>

EXCELLENT article -- even though it's an editorial.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#2 Aug 29, 2013
The kitten hate was predictable from just reading the title.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3 Aug 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
The kitten hate was predictable from just reading the title.
Yeah, you may be right.

I was busy at work, and only briefly scanned the article. I evidently got the gist of this report entirely wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#4 Aug 30, 2013
According to this article, Jim Ryan's "theories" are just as valid as anything else and should be taught in school.
SpaceBlues

United States

#5 Sep 1, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<cut/paste from article>
"The need for scientific inquiry is over, according to those who insist matters that are “settled” aren’t worthy of exploration. This is what passes for thoughtfulness in higher education today.
At Ball State University in Indiana, for example, anti-religion activists are irritated that physics and astronomy professor Eric Hedin presented intelligent design in his classroom as a plausible theory of origins. The basic gist was that mankind and the universe did not spring forth out of a series of wholly random events and that some higher power guided the process.
Sociologist-turned-college president Jo Ann Gora doesn’t want such a possibility ever discussed in a Ball State classroom.“Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom,” she wrote in a July 31 letter to faculty.“It is an issue of academic integrity. As I noted, the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory.”
Progress depends on challenging the conventional wisdom. Most of the ancient world looked at the sky and assumed it was obvious that the universe revolved around the Earth. In the 16th century, Copernicus said, no, the common belief was wrong and the planets, including Earth, revolve around the sun. A century later, Newton explained how gravity made it all work, which was accepted until Einstein came along with his breakthrough theory of relativity. Science never rests.
A superior court judge in the District of Columbia thinks she knows better, last month using the “settled science” principle to side with Penn State University Professor Michael E. Mann in his defamation lawsuit against pundit Mark Steyn, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Each had published material critical of Mr. Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that has been used to peddle global warming while hiding the recent decline in global temperatures. The criticism was the sort of speech that ought to be protected under the First Amendment, but Judge Natalia M. Greene doesn’t care, and the case continues next month.
Her interim ruling points out that a Penn State committee of global warming advocates agreed with Mr. Mann, and so did the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s settled, then.“Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud,” writes Judge Greene,“and none of those investigations having found [Mr. Mann‘s] work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false.” Judge Greene’s chilling conclusion is that it can be a crime to label purveyors of global warming alarmism as charlatans.
Undermining speech in the public square or the public classroom in this way is a mistake. Science isn’t settled on a lot of points, and society’s advance requires more speech, inquiry and debate, not less."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/...
<end cut/paste>
EXCELLENT article -- even though it's an editorial.
LOL. Why don't you go home to Mars with that Editor!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#6 Sep 2, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<cut/paste from article>
"The need for scientific inquiry is over, according to those who insist matters that are “settled” aren’t worthy of exploration. This is what passes for thoughtfulness in higher education today.
At Ball State University in Indiana, for example, anti-religion activists are irritated that physics and astronomy professor Eric Hedin presented intelligent design in his classroom as a plausible theory of origins. The basic gist was that mankind and the universe did not spring forth out of a series of wholly random events and that some higher power guided the process.
Sociologist-turned-college president Jo Ann Gora doesn’t want such a possibility ever discussed in a Ball State classroom.“Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom,” she wrote in a July 31 letter to faculty.“It is an issue of academic integrity. As I noted, the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory.”
Progress depends on challenging the conventional wisdom. Most of the ancient world looked at the sky and assumed it was obvious that the universe revolved around the Earth. In the 16th century, Copernicus said, no, the common belief was wrong and the planets, including Earth, revolve around the sun. A century later, Newton explained how gravity made it all work, which was accepted until Einstein came along with his breakthrough theory of relativity. Science never rests.
A superior court judge in the District of Columbia thinks she knows better, last month using the “settled science” principle to side with Penn State University Professor Michael E. Mann in his defamation lawsuit against pundit Mark Steyn, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Each had published material critical of Mr. Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that has been used to peddle global warming while hiding the recent decline in global temperatures. The criticism was the sort of speech that ought to be protected under the First Amendment, but Judge Natalia M. Greene doesn’t care, and the case continues next month.
Her interim ruling points out that a Penn State committee of global warming advocates agreed with Mr. Mann, and so did the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s settled, then.“Having been investigated by almost one dozen bodies due to accusations of fraud,” writes Judge Greene,“and none of those investigations having found [Mr. Mann‘s] work to be fraudulent, it must be concluded that the accusations are provably false.” Judge Greene’s chilling conclusion is that it can be a crime to label purveyors of global warming alarmism as charlatans.
Undermining speech in the public square or the public classroom in this way is a mistake. Science isn’t settled on a lot of points, and society’s advance requires more speech, inquiry and debate, not less."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/...
<end cut/paste>
EXCELLENT article -- even though it's an editorial.
In the global warming dispute, the question is whether Mann's attackers questioned his methodology and conclusions using rational arguments, or whether they did merely try to defame him based on the now discredited claim that he had resorted to fraud

We would have to see the articles - there is a big difference.

Anyone has a right to protect themselves against slander and libel.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#7 Sep 2, 2013
(except on Topix of course!!!)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ball State University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Off the shelf: Marsh plans $1M remodels of two ... (Jan '11) May '17 North East Corner 14
News Teen charged after smear campaign disgusts rest... (Oct '14) Feb '17 Phartoid 8
News Rise of the machines: Fear robots, not China or... (Jan '17) Feb '17 jadooxtv 3
News Flagler College's Dr. Leslee Keys receives hist... (Nov '16) Nov '16 Whocares 1
News Editorial: Questions abound on arena sitea (Oct '16) Oct '16 Fire the bums 6
News Orthopedics clinic proposes $13M investment to ... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Lincoln Fibness 1
News Police arrest Ball State professor on child por... (Jul '16) Jul '16 Jason 2
More from around the web