U.S. population lags in accepting evolution

[drkitten]

According to Sternberg's curriculum vitae,

Yes, I read his c.v.. Why do you think I'm willing to make statements like "judging from his c.v., Dr Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist"?

Evidently you've read it, but not understood what a typical biological c.v. looks like. Did you read Dr Garey's?

 

[Dave1001]

For instance, how do you intend to convince people that stem cell research is not evil without presenting them the with the science?
Just saying "tell them that they'll burn in hell" doesn't work. You'd need to convince the church to tell them that. And the church isn't about to do that.

1. I think telling them they'll burn in hell may work. Has it even been tried yet? For the muslim world we can promise 72 virgins -and not for blowing onesself up, just for supporting stem cell research. What a bargain!
2. A realist assessment of the church might be that the church cares primarily about maintaining and expanding its own power. Thus, just as the Roman Catholic Church has adapted to embrace evolution and Pat Robertson has adapted to embrace the fight against human-caused global warming (which I'm not even sure is true) I think that the most influential religious leaders can be convinced to tell their followers to support technology and approaches that will benefit these influential religious leaders -provided that doing so doesn't result in a lost of their power or prestige in the world. It's not like we're asking them to stop evangelizing, encouraging their followers to have kids, or to stop collecting money through tithing: we're just asking them to tell their followers to support using leftover blastocytes for stem cell research, etc.

 

[Dave1001]

I would think that two PhDs in evolutionary biology and more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications would qualify one as an outstanding biologist. The Project Steve list is irrelevant to the issue at hand because I am not asserting that no one on that list is an outstanding biologist.

I agree with your general point that some doubt in all areas, including about darwinism, is a good thing. But why would one need a 2nd PhD in evolutionary biology?

 

[drkitten]

I agree with your general point that some doubt in all areas, including about darwinism, is a good thing. But why would one need a 2nd PhD in evolutionary biology?

Because the first one demonstrably didn't take.

Unfortunately, neither did the second one.

If you think of education as a cure for ignorance, then obviously Dr. Sternberg has one of the rare education-resistant infections.

Or not so rare. I think it's called "stupidity."

 

[Rodney]

Yes, I read his c.v.. Why do you think I'm willing to make statements like "judging from his c.v., Dr Sternberg is in no sense "outstanding" as a biologist"?

Because you're close-minded? And, how, exactly, did this mediocre biologist get a job as a research associate at the Smithsonian and become Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

Evidently you've read it, but not understood what a typical biological c.v. looks like. Did you read Dr Garey's?

No, is his typical?

 

[andyandy]

I agree with you. Clearly they are less elite than nontransparent elitists, and I for one am glad you're making them aware of that fact. Transparently elitist thinkers should not think more of themselves than their lot deserves. As such I think they should change their names to penultimate elitists.

riiiight.....

are you suggesting that because i critisised people who think in elitist terms this therefore means that it is I who regards myself as a true elite....?! lol.....


by that "logic" anyone who calls into question your elitist ideals is themselves a hypocrite.....i guess that's one way of cementing a position.....

 

[Dave1001]

riiiight.....

are you suggesting that because i critisised people who think in elitist terms this therefore means that it is I who regards myself as a true elite....?! lol.....

No, not necessarily. One can be decidedly non-elite and yet criticize people who think in elitist terms. For example BobbleheadBetty who expressed her disdain for elitists in the comments of this blog post http://www.naebunny.net/~mommylemur/archives/2006/02/okay_im_getting.html is probably not a nontransparent elitist. As best I can tell, she's the real thing: non-elite.

But Neil Cavuto http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/neilcavuto226196.html just may be a nontransparent elitist. David Sirota too http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/iraq-shows-the-growing-di_b_11601.html. And perhaps Sean Hannity too http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0060582510-excerpt.asp. In these links they publicly declare certain people transparently elitist due to their behavior, in contrast to themselves, in such a way as to elevate themselves morally above the transparent elitist that they're criticizing.

by that "logic" anyone who calls into question your elitist ideals is themselves a hypocrite.....i guess that's one way of cementing a position.....

I don't think so. I think a nontransparent elitist considers transparent elitists beneath them, rather than above them. And I would agree. By the way, I'm firmly in the nontransparent elitist camp. There's a reason I express these type ideas anonymously.

 

[hgc]

riiiight.....

are you suggesting that because i critisised people who think in elitist terms this therefore means that it is I who regards myself as a true elite....?! lol.....


by that "logic" anyone who calls into question your elitist ideals is themselves a hypocrite.....i guess that's one way of cementing a position.....

Why are you looking down your nose at elitists, you ... you ... something or other?

 

[Cuddles]

Because you're close-minded? And, how, exactly, did this mediocre biologist get a job as a research associate at the Smithsonian and become Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

No, is his typical?

"Research associate" = basic research job. Anyone involved in any research will have a title like this.

"Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society" = secretary who writes the minutes.

Any CV tries to make itself look as good as possible, this doesn't mean most of it actually means anything.

 

[andyandy]

No, not necessarily. One can be decidedly non-elite and yet criticize people who think in elitist terms. For example BobbleheadBetty who expressed her disdain for elitists in the comments of this blog post http://www.naebunny.net/~mommylemur/archives/2006/02/okay_im_getting.html is probably not a nontransparent elitist. As best I can tell, she's the real thing: non-elite.

But Neil Cavuto http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/neilcavuto226196.html just may be a nontransparent elitist. David Sirota too http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/iraq-shows-the-growing-di_b_11601.html. And perhaps Sean Hannity too http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0060582510-excerpt.asp. In these links they publicly declare certain people transparently elitist due to their behavior, in contrast to themselves, in such a way as to elevate themselves morally above the transparent elitist that they're criticizing.

ms bobblehead's quote

I hate elitists who are so much better than the rest of us that they won't watch reality based shows. They're almost as bad as the people who don't own a television because they're too good to watch it at all.

Neil Cavuto's quote

I hate elitists. I hate conceited people. I hate pompous people.

is ms bobblehead thoroughly non-elite merely because she pads out her elitist hatred?

how would one go about convincing you (apparently the arbiter on such matters) that one was in fact sincere in their dislike of elitists?

 

[drkitten]

Because you're close-minded? And, how, exactly, did this mediocre biologist get a job as a research associate at the Smithsonian and become Managing Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington?

Um, you are aware that those are second-string jobs, aren't you? Possibly even third-string, depending upon your specific desires. I had a better job than those three years post-Ph.D., and I'm hardly a superstar.

A first-string job in the sciences is a professorship at a top-flight university or possibly a high-ranking (much higher than "research associate" or GS-13) administrative position at one of the various national laboratories. A second-string job in the sciences is a tenure-track position at almost any college or university. Postdocs are usually reserved for brand-new, ink-not-yet-dry Ph.D.'s. Being a soft-money postdoc for longer than five years or so is usually a sign of a scholar who isn't very good. Being a soft-money postdoc for fifteen (as Dr Sternberg is)... well, let me just point out that it's extremely far from being a good sign.

Similarly, "Managing Editor" of a third-rate journal is hardly an impressive accomplishment. (If you want to see just how bad it is, its impact factor is about 0.23, meaning only about a quarter of the papers presented in it ever get cited again. Alternatively, you could note that it costs only about $40/year for the back issues; back issues of major journals are incredibly expensive precisely because the demand is so high and they're cash cows for the publishers.) He's not even the "Editor," but just a glorified gopher -- you do know the difference between "Managing Editor" and "Editor," right?

Another sign of weakness is his lack of funding; according to the c.v. you cited, he's received two "postdoctoral fellowships," but no actual competitive project-based grants. THis alone would make him more or less noncompetitive if he tried to apply for a job at my university; after fifteen years of research in the biological sciences, he should have been able to find project funding.

So my bet is that this mediocre biologist got his slot at the Smithsonian because no "real" university would hire him, and similarly, he's was working at the third-rate journal because a) the GS-13 postdoc didn't pay very well and b) he's not good enough to work at a higher-profile journal (and he was in the Washington area). I'd be much more impressed by his credentials if he were an honest assistant professor at the University of Southeastern Mississippi.

And, yes, Dr Garey's c.v. (which I cited above) is a more typical academic career arc for a competent (if not necessarily stellar) researcher.

 

[Overman]

ms bobblehead's quote



Neil Cavuto's quote



is ms bobblehead thoroughly non-elite merely because she pads out her elitist hatred?

how would one go about convincing you (apparently the arbiter on such matters) that one was in fact sincere in their dislike of elitists?

By simply stating it without the snooty elitish tone that your posts characterize.

 

[andyandy]

By simply stating it without the snooty elitish tone that your posts characterize.

lol

snooty elitist tone? I'm just putting an argument forward....show me which bit is "snooty" or "elitist"....

i thought you were all for elitism anyway? Or is it only elitism for yourself?

 

[Dave1001]

how would one go about convincing you (apparently the arbiter on such matters) that one was in fact sincere in their dislike of elitists?

On what do you base your belief that I'm apparently the arbiter on such matters? I'm just expressing my opinion as a member of a message board. But I'm either flattered by your belief in my power on this subject or amused by your irony.

Oh, and I think one can be a nontransparent elite and sincerely dislike transparent elites. In fact, I think many if not most do. How would a non-transparent elitist convince me that they are in fact sincere in their dislike of all elitists? By outsmarting me, which I'm sure a significant cohort of nontransparent elites do on a daily basis. And maybe, just maybe, Ms. Bobblehead is among that number.

 

[Dave1001]

Or is it only elitism for yourself?

He'd hardly cobble together a power majority that way. I assume that it would at least be elitism for himself and a hegemonic cohort.

 

[andyandy]

On what do you base your belief that I'm apparently the arbiter on such matters? I'm just expressing my opinion as a member of a message board. But I'm either flattered by your belief in my power on this subject or amused by your irony.

....i was under the impression that "nontransparent elitist" was a term of your own invention - as as such you would indeed be the arbiter as to how someone could avoid being labelled as one.....I've googled it to no success....so if you could provide me a link as to where you came across the term that would be great.....

Oh, and I think one can be a nontransparent elite and sincerely dislike transparent elites. In fact, I think many if not most do. How would a non-transparent elitist convince me that they are in fact sincere in their dislike of all elitists? By outsmarting me, which I'm sure a significant cohort of nontransparent elites do on a daily basis. And maybe, just maybe, Ms. Bobblehead is among that number.

lol just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you

 

[jimlintott]

I'm a lay person but even I know that a petition, no matter how many names appear, is not acceptable as any sort of scientific evidence for against anything. It is only acceptable as evidence that n number of people signed a petition.

 

[drkitten]

I'm a lay person but even I know that a petition, no matter how many names appear, is not acceptable as any sort of scientific evidence for against anything. It is only acceptable as evidence that n number of people signed a petition.

Unfortunately, that's not reasonable. "Argument from authority," although formally fallacious, is actually a pretty good way to learn stuff -- if I want to know how many stars there are in the Milky Way galaxy, I'd be much better off asking a cosmology professor than my Uncle Sid the plumber. And if I can ask lots of cosmology professors, that minimizes the chance that the one guy at the local uni is a lunatic whose view are not representative of the scientific consensus (and the preponderance of evidence that I'm too lazy to evaluate for myself).

The problem isn't with the 600 Ph.D's or with the petition. The problem is that a) few of the signatories are genuine experts (the fact that Uncle Sid once got a Boy Scout merit badge in astronomy does not make him an expert), and that b) the petition is so small and so unrepresentative as to be meaningless. Similarly, a bunch of self-interested experts producing a position paper in line with their interests -- think Tobacco Institute here -- is probably not worthwhile. But when an organization like the American Association for the Advancement of Science comes out with a position statement in favor of evolution, it does a pretty good job of representing not just a random collection of scientists, but the considered judgement of the largest and most representative body of "experts" in the United States (if not the world).

 

[Overman]

lol

snooty elitist tone? I'm just putting an argument forward....show me which bit is "snooty" or "elitist"....

i thought you were all for elitism anyway? Or is it only elitism for yourself?

The snooty or elitist tones may (or may not) have simply been added by the way that I read them. From the replies that many gave I have a feeling other members may have as well...

My orginal quote was "There is no shame is bringing back the term 'Brights' when the general population appears to be the opposite..." and I find no shame in this quote.

For someone to not believe in evolution, despite past evidence, current education, and current (ongoing) observation is a err in rational thought. Is the idea that they ignore these claims while living their lives in such an accord as to not make an imaginary figure send them to a place where their flesh is roasted for thousands of years while they work like slaves a laughable concept to me? Yes.

Still, I do not consider this elitist in the sense that your accusations have termed. Do I consider myself more educated and informed (smarter) in this one area of biology? Certianly.

Do I consider myself more ethical than these people? Do I consider myself smarter in any other area of expertise than these people? Do I consider myself as somehow have more 'value' than these people?

Are these the type of questions that get lumped into your 'elitist' name calling?

Did you purposely use the term elitist to produce such a perception?

 

[andyandy]

The snooty or elitist tones may (or may not) have simply been added by the way that I read them.

well none were intended

My orginal quote was "There is no shame is bringing back the term 'Brights' when the general population appears to be the opposite..." and I find no shame in this quote.

For someone to not believe in evolution, despite past evidence, current education, and current (ongoing) observation is a err in rational thought. Is the idea that they ignore these claims while living their lives in such an accord as to not make an imaginary figure send them to a place where their flesh is roasted for thousands of years while they work like slaves a laughable concept to me? Yes.

Still, I do not consider this elitist in the sense that your accusations have termed. Do I consider myself more educated and informed (smarter) in this one area of biology? Certianly.

Do I consider myself more ethical than these people? Do I consider myself smarter in any other area of expertise than these people? Do I consider myself as somehow have more 'value' than these people?

Are these the type of questions that get lumped into your 'elitist' name calling?

Did you purposely use the term elitist to produce such a perception?

sure, i apologise - you may have got roped into an argument over elitism with Dave over this post (and others previously)

I think that a large portion of the brains on this planet simply aren't a suitable medium for this level of critical thinking memes. As such, rather than waste resources convincing them to adopt a rote belief in the less-intuitive-for-them theory of evolution, I think we should spend our society dollars in such a way that we get maximum (humane) utilitarian behavior out of this large subset of the population.

I took your "brights" comment for a show of support for this view - which i thought was rather elitist....