Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As I said, this is commonly considered good, sound practical research methodology for testing these types of artifacts. I shouldn't have to justify it to you.
I also liked the letter ticking off some of Sternberg’s violations of policy and concluding, “If I were to do this in any other museum I’d be run out of that town.” Apparently this guy was really handled with kid gloves.
It is when you should have been fired, or just let go due to circumstances, but got to stay because the boss was afraid you'd pull the "protected group" card. It's right there, the guy was willing to put his reputation on the line as a sponsor just to keep him from pulling the victim card. That's how afraid the institution was of the new ID PC.
It wasn't a "Congressional report," except insofar as it was a report issued by a Congressman. The Congressman in question, Mark Souder, is on record in support of "teaching the controversy"--he writes on his Web site,
But why can’t high school students just learn the standard scientific view and be done with it? Science is science, and that should end the debate.Souder commissioned the report to be written by his staff, but it wasn't accepted into the Congressional Record and was only published in his capacity as an individual representative.Normally it would. But evolution is different.
Similarly, as far as I can tell, the "OSC report" is one letter written by one attorney summarizing his preliminary investigation. I can't find out much about the lawyer except that it's been claimed that he had no prior employment law experience before his appointment to the OSC.
At the suggestion of AndrewC I have downloaded the list of signers to the Discovery Institute’s “Scientific Dissent to Darwinism.” I am in the process of loading the names and credentials into a relational database. What we have in the published list is people’s names, their advanced degrees, if any, and their occupation at the time of signing.
What I will do is google each name and see if there are any accounts of their being fired or demoted, find out if their occupations have undergone any drastic change, and record this in my database.
I estimate this could take a month or two in my spare time. I will get it published on DarwinCentral and make the database available to other bloggers.
I’m sure there will be marginal cases where people have had their feelings hurt, and I will find a way of coding claims of discrimination that do not involve loss of paying jobs.
I haven’t counted the signers, but there are are more than 500. That’s approaching the sample size of polling populations for presidential elections. These people are not just sympathetic to ID. They have painted bull’s eyes on their foreheads. It will be illuminating to see what percentage have been Expelled.
That's what was reported.
Here we disagree again.
Compromise means compromise. It doesn't mean you get it all your way or take your toys home in a hissy fit.
Where does the statement, not made by Dembski, state that they want no association with DI?
It's in the article.
You might be confusing the internet connection with association.
Imagine an exchange like this from Obama:
"The Communist Party of America links to your site and endorses you."
O: "Well, I can't control who links to my site."
"But you were a paid employee of the CPA for the three years prior to your running, and they hosted a recent fundraiser for you."
That's what this sounds like. You must really want for there to be a campaign of persecution. Hint: Yes, the protected groups in this country get over by playing their respective cards, and it would be tempting to want that for yourself. But watch out, it's a dishonest liberal trap. Start climbing before you fall all the way in and become one of them.
Good idea. In actual harm, not hurt feelings (poor baby, can’t hack it in the nasty science world?), not underperforming or rules-breaking employees playing the ID card, I bet the level of true persecution will be below statistical significance.
What good sound practical research methodology have you provided?
I believe that was the opinion of the unnamed individual who wanted Sternberg removed. I assume he was the person referred to in the email traffic who was the candidate for receiving the suggested "Shut up" action.
Are you honestly so dense you don't understand the idea of testing tool or weapons artifacts by trying them out to see how well they perform the functions they are hypothesized to be used for?
First, they explicitly stated there was no reason for him to be "fired". Since his sponsor had been deceased for a prior to the publication of the Meyer article, it is evident that the lack of sponsor was no reason to release him. What did Sternberg do? Hide the body of his sponsor in the closet?
Are you so dense as to consider "go hunting" as a valid test of anything? How about some parameters for the "test" and how those parameters validly indicate that something is an arrowhead while something else is not?
Fantastic! You can even ask for some assistance from me, and I'll try to provide what you want.
How about you stop digging before you get in any deeper. You've made a fool of yourself protesting a suggestion anyone else would have thought perfectly reasonable.
Afraid of ID PC with an ID congresscritter breathing down your neck. There was ample documented justification for his firing over the mishandling of artifacts. You saw the quotes, "I’d be run out of that town" for actions like his.
What did Sternberg do?
Pulled the ID card when it came time to be renewed and he didn't have a sponsor keep the higher status?
I'm really noticing a trend of the total lack of personal responsibility these IDers have. Nothing's their fault, it's all persecution, the SI sent in the black helicopters after me! This crowd seems to have a good supply of tin foil.
All that you say may be true. It is still an analysis of the event. There would have been no way to get the actual email traffic out to the world without those two reports.(I don’t think that the Smithsonian itself would have released them even if it had the power to do so)
Speaking for others is an indication of megalomania. "Go hunting" is not a rational test for "arrowheadness" without specifying relevant parameters and indicating their relevance.
Rail on. I don't care if you like it or not.
From a single individual, unless you can show more.
Compromise means compromise. It doesn't mean you get it all your way or take your toys home in a hissy fit.
True, but when you are not involved in the compromise process, you don't have to accept the resulting compromise unless you agreed to accept any outcome. Then, to maintain integrity, you would have to bend over and take it when the "compromise" was fecally endowed.
It's in the article.
The word is in the article, but not used by Dembski or his co-worker. Search the article for yourself.
So, Obama was a paid employee of the CPA. That is relevant. In the instance we are discussing "Creationism Connection" was also mentioned as a "such as". What is Dembski's previous association with them? I told you that the Center's association with the Discovery Institute was open knowledge. It was a sponsor of the conference held there. I did not say that there was no association. I said the comment about links was a valid answer without denying association. It denied giving permission for connection in relation to the internet.
I know that. I have openly called you disengenuous. You keep proving it. Now other people are having rational "discussions" with me, so buzz off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.