Larry Moran takes apart the Marcus Ross case in some detail. Ross is the young earth creationist who recently received his Ph.D. from the University of Rhode Island.
In this situation we have an example of someone who carefully hid his true belief from the thesis committee, or at least went out of his way to give them an excuse to avoid facing up to the main problem. This is deceptive and antithetical to how science is supposed to operate. It opens a whole other can of worms. While most of us would agree that openly advocating a young Earth in your thesis would be grounds for failure, we couldn't fail someone who effectively lied about his "scientific" opinion. We put our faith in honesty and scientific integrity whenever possible. It's the default assumption.
But here's the rub. Although there wasn't anything in his thesis about a 10,000 year old Earth it wasn't the case that his examining committee was completely ignorant of Ross' true views on paleontology. In fact, they were aware of the history. They knew Ross was a Young Earth Creationist when they admitted him to graduate school and they had no reason to suspect that he had changed his mind.
The bottom line is that faculty of Rhode Island University gave a Ph.D. degree in geology to someone they knew to be a "scientist" who believed that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. Furthermore, they gave a Ph.D. to someone who they knew was deliberately misrepresenting his "scientific" views in his thesis. They had every reason to suspect that this misrepresentation was for the sole purpose of getting the Ph.D. since Ross knew that by being honest about his rejection of a old Earth, he would not graduate. This is a double whammy since not only was Ross ignorant of the basic principles in his field but also ignorant of the principles of scientific integrity.
Some people are spinning this as scientists demanding a litmus test for irrelevant religious beliefs, and insisting that we can't judge a student for his beliefs. It's true that we shouldn't and I don't evaluate my students now or my grad students in the past on the basis of their beliefs. But that's not what's being said here. Ross was a two-faced liar who would say one thing to his committee, and another to the public. I might be able to forgive that if he were lying about personal matters that are not part of his committee's purview—but he was lying about the science he was doing. That isn't forgivable.
If I'd been on his committee, I would have directly asked him to defend his public statements about the age of the material he was studying—not his statements to his committee alone, but to the public at large. I would have insisted that he defend those comments scientifically. And when he failed to do so, I would have voted to deny him his degree.
Although, more realistically, if I'd been in that department, the rejection would have occurred at the admission step, or in the preliminary exam. Apparently, the university knew he was a young earth creationist at the time he admitted him, which is simply appalling. I would expect new grad students to have some basic knowledge of the discipline—professing something so stupidly at odds with the science ought to disqualify him immediately, and his slot in the graduate program given to someone more deserving and more teachable.
Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate, any more than Kent Hovind and his fake degree.
- Log in to post comments
"Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate, any more than Kent Hovind and his fake degree."
Speaking as someone who is working towards his PhD, I entirely agree. Quite frankly, what Ross did makes me sick.
But, would he have passed anything if he would have written the creationism theories he believed into his work? Would he ever have gotten a degree from our university (I live in RI too) if he would have been up front with his beliefs?
Wasn't he just answering in the way that he was taught? Wasn't he giving the answers that were expected?
I think I would have done something similar. A degree from a university is a big thing to have. An important thing to have. So, if I was studying science and wanted to seek a career in a field I would do whatever it took. But in this case it took giving the answers that the passing grade required.
Eh. That's just my opinion. I need to read up a bit more on this article.
z.
Another way to look it is that while he got his degree by refusing to argue his point of view on his major point of interest, but once he has his PhD he will use its authority to support the same views he refused to argue. He has evaded the kind of peer criticism that makes science work.
This is the first time I've heard that R.I.U grants PhDs. I think that a lot of innocents will find their degrees devalued.
I confess I would actually be sympathetic to his point of view in some less scientific area. For me to have gotten a PhD in several of my own areas of interest would have required some rote regurgitation of things I didn't really believe.
The requirements for a Ph.D. go well beyond that. The Ph.D. candidate is not merely expected to demonstrate understanding of her field, but to have demonstrated her ability to practice it- to make an original contribution to it. The significance of Wells's kind of dishonesty is much more serious in this context than in the case of a baccalaureate degree. It signifies the welcoming of a conscious fraud into, in the words commonly used at university commencement ceremonies,"the ancient and honorable company of scholars".
No, you aren't understanding anything.
A Ph.D. is not supposed to be earned by parroting back the answers you expect the examiners want -- it is supposed to be earned by doing creative, scholarly work. As Larry noted, disagreeing with the committee is fine, we actually like an opinionated candidate who pushes back with different ideas.
Don't bother going for an advanced degree if you think it is a matter of going through the motions and giving the "right" answers.
Man, how many more talk.origins regulars are going to graduate to becoming big-time bloggers? T.o seems like a breeding ground for bloggers these days.
Not that I'm complaining, of course, it's just uncanny.
Actually, my "another way to look at it" is the same thing Moran says.
I'm wondering whether the RIU Earth Sciences dept. might be a financially struggling department which has to accept all warm-body applicants.
I'd have to repeat that this kind of thing is fairly common in social sciences and humanities. Grad students often refer to their grad studies as "jumping through hoops" or "running mazes" and do their work without real committment to its methods and content. Those who feel that way are less likely to graduate, I would suspect, but they often still do.
This kind of regurgitation is much more true in practical programs (medicine, education, nursing, engineering, etc.) which have a liberal arts component.
This guy is making a mockery of academic credibility.
Misrepresenting yourself to an awards comittee to gain an award that you plan to use to misrepresent yourself to the public is just plain sickening.
This guy is jerk, but Rhode Island U should be very very ashamed at letting him get away with it. (Out of fear of criticism for being anti-religious?)
Like John, I'm wondering why exactly they chose to accept this candidate. Fastovsky is an impeccable palaeontologist and I'd imagine there are plenty of geologists out there who'd like to do a PhD (I know myself how hard it can be to get on a program). Why on earth choose one who is deeply intellectually dishonest, a position which is anathema to the basic principles of science?
He should be recognized as Marcus Ross, B.S. Artist
If he completed the work necessary, there's no cause to treat him differently than any other grad student.
Caledonian, once again, getting a Ph.D. is supposed to require a lot more than "completing work". I gather you don't have one, or you'd be aware of that (I would hope).
If they are a struggling department (I have no idea), they've just learned the first lesson: when you're in that kind of hole, lowering your standards isn't the way to get out. This kind of publicity is going to hurt.
Think about it. If you were the next young SJ Gould or GG Simpson, would URI be on your short list of grad schools?
On the other hand, if you were a starry-eyed bible college student who dreamed of disproving evilution, you now have a compatible secular university to which you can apply.
Yeah, you make good points. I agree, it does seem dishonest on Ross' part and a little desperate or stupid on URI's part.
But again, consider these are creationist views - young earth at that - so, I am sure it is tempting to cover it up so that you can just get a degree. Bringing such radical views before a committee that holds your career in their hands sounds like reason enough to fit into their mold.
But I don't have a degree so I am just speculating.
z.
This happened in our biology department a number of years ago. A M.Sc. student in dev. bio graduated despite her fast held YEC beliefs. I recall talking to her at a bar prior to her defense and she told me that she 'compartmentalized' her beliefs. When asked about the overwhleming evidence for evolution, she agreed and said that she did not beleive that evolution could be rationally disproved, but that gawd had created the illusion of evolution to test their faith.
There you have it. It happens in the Great White North too. At least they didn't grant her a Ph.D.
Yeah, yeah, it's supposed to be about "something more" - and as is the case with most such claims, it's nonsense. It's always about the work. (In the case of non-scientific fields, the work doesn't even have to be coherent.)
Make up your minds: do you think candidates should be obligated to demonstrate belief on certain positions, or not? Making an exception to require this individual to meet a higher and more-demanding set of criteria isn't exactly just. It would also be a bad idea to begin mandating which beliefs candidates must not only possess, but profess.
If Ross had been honest, he would have proposed experiments to support his true beliefs. He may not have gotten his degree or even been admitted into the program in the first place, but he'd be following one of the Big Ten. Something about not giving false witness.
Those who aren't outraged seem to feel that if views aren't mainstream then hiding them is acceptable in order to garner a mainstream prize.
I call that duplicity and cowardice.
If these young-earthers are so convinced that their 'theory' is valid, then why are they so reluctant to examine and prove it? Don't bother answering that.
Having watched many PhD applicants struggle, sometimes for years, to develop, test and publish their theses, then go through the gruelling committee phase, I can tell you you can onlt GET a PhD by having novel, ie, non-mainstream, ideas on a subject.
This person has lost sight of the whole point of a Master's or PhD degree - it's not about the framed piece of paper, it's about being committed to the arduous task of getting your theory accepted into the scientific literature. That's why they don't come cheaply.
If you would lie to achieve that, it really negates the whole process. Furthermore, it would call into question the validity of any future work in which you might engage.
It's bogus - just like the applicant in this example, who would likely fare better in politics than he ever will in science.
Rugosa - Wow, exactly. Good point.
There are similar problems with tenure. Candidates have a tendency to behave in conventional ways that don't offend anyone on the selection committee, and once they have it, those that have weird ideas follow them - including not doing more than the absolute minimum to keep from losing tenure, working on anti-scientific nonsense now that they're immune from basic standards, and so forth.
Supposedly tenure is useful because it permits the intellectual freedom to pursue whatever topics people wish without being subject to political or theoretical infighting. But since there's no means of control once tenure is granted, that just means people try to control who gets tenure that much harder - and people work to disguise their actual positions so they can get tenure.
PS Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned. This example would be the equivalent of my going to Inquisitor School to get a red hood so that I could speak out against the Inquisition as an insider.
What would be the point? Why would I want the red hood if I believed the whole thing was a crock?
I think you have to take a stand somewhere, sometime, that's all I'm saying.
Caledonian, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. A lot more than lip service is given to the "something more" in any Ph.D. program that should be allowed to stay in business. Since you obviouly have no real understanding, or have a cynical misunderstanding, of what admission to the "ancient and honorable company of scholars" is meant to signify, your perspective on Ross frankly is of no value.
Simply mouthing the words, as I pointed out in Larry's comment thread, demonstrates about the same level of "understanding" of science that a cargo cultist has of industry. That's not what a Ph.D. is supposed to be awarded for.
I turn up to the lab at 8.30 every week day, work my ass off till 10pm, go home, catch a few hours sleep, do it all over again. I've been doing this for two years now, because my PhD (and science in general) means something to me. The same applies to my peers; PhDs ultimately do mean "something more." I'm therefore not overly favourably inclined towards someone who, irrespective of the quality of his work, did not hold themselves to the basic standards of intellectual honesty.
The guy lied, its as simple as that. When we start making excuses for lying, its a sad day indeed.
PZ wrote: Apparently, the university knew he was a young earth creationist at the time he admitted him, which is simply appalling.
But they also said:
"We did not know nearly as much about creationism and young earth and intelligent design as we do now."
I can't help but read something between the lines here...
They knew Ross was a Young Earth Creationist when they admitted him to graduate school and they had no reason to suspect that he had changed his mind.
Exactly. That twerp went out of his way to shove his belief in their faces and they still gave him a pass.
Why did they do it? It's the liberal guilt disease. Next time, tell him where to shove it.
Q. You've been through 4 years of college science and a masters program and you still say the earth is 10K years old?
A. Yup.
Q. Go shove it up your ass.
It would be interesting to see a discussion of the legal ramifications of denying a candidate such as Ross at either the admissions or the defense stage. I seem to recall a case in Texas where a student involved the law when a prof made a litmus test of belief a condition for writing letters of recommendation.
Any legal eagles out there care to comment?...SH
Personally, I liken this situation to one of the back stories of the show The Wire on HBO.
For those not familiar with the show, there was a character who was enrolled in college, attempting to get his degree in business. Unfortunately, the actual work he was putting into becoming a businessman outside of class was to try and turn a drug ring he had started in the Baltimore projects into a money-making business; he was applying his education to illegal/dishonest activities.
He was essentially playing the same part as Mr. Ross, putting in a "positive" effort while in class, but using that positive effort toward a patently dishonest end. This character, of course, ended up reaping the true "benefits" of his "hard work".
I'm coming down on the other side of this one, this time.
I'll begin by loosely paraphrasing my graduate advisor, years ago: "You don't have to believe your topic, you just have to demonstrate and defend it. When you have that degree, you can afford the convenience of conviction."
Science, for it to be science, must be a process, not a belief structure (Actually, that should be said of all academic research.). You have been regularly inundated with the posts of fools who have THE ANSWER, and were more than willing either to sell it to you, or cram it down your throat. Frustration with that is entirely understandable.
However, it is the integrity of science we seek to preserve, not the integrity of scientists. At the end of the day, we're all lacking, one way or the other. It is only by the accumulation of data where science makes any advances at all, and that requires a commitment to the process, not the result.
One's personal beliefs are irrelevant to the process: that's what we have been saying to the anti-scientists all along. We can only be true to that dictum when dissertations like the one in question, if sound, are accepted, irrespective the personal beliefs of the candidate. The only matter at question is the soundness of the science, on its own merits.
From a practical standpoint, it is actually somewhat refreshing that Dr. Ross was appointed to a position at Liberty. At least he will enter the position actually having done science (as opposed to some PhD-in-a-can from Fly-By-Nite-U. like Hovind was). But there is a career danger present for him as well: at some point, he may run afoul of the system, merely for having done science. We've seen that happen before at a number of institutions. I do not envy him his success.
Ultimately, we should only judge the content of the science, not the content of the scientist. Others do the latter, and we justifiably excoriate them for it.
Even given the compelling nature of the empirical evidence accumulated over generations, there must always be room for re-examination, no matter how fruitless it may prove to be. There must be room for the researcher to doubt the conclusions of predecessors, lest we fall into the trap Medieval Aristotelianism encountered.
Of course, the mere room for doubt doesn't make all doubt fit curricular matter for schoolchildren or survey courses.
Again, no. When you publish results (and submitting a Ph.D. thesis is a form of publication, not to mention that if it's any good it should yield journal articles as well) you are certifying that, to the best of your current knowledge, the results you're publishing are correct. Now, perhaps you've been really lucky and your results have OVERTURNED some accepted scientific belief. Congratulations- your career is off to a super start! So we have to carefully distinguish belief in accepted wisdom from belief in the veracity of one's own research results. Only the latter is the troublesome issue in Morris's case.
Don't bother going for an advanced degree if you think it is a matter of going through the motions and giving the "right" answers.
I'm sure he's now giving all the "right" answers at Liberty U.
Yes, Jerry, yes. I hate gays too! Jerry - you know I was kidding about the earth being really old. I just said that to get through the Ph.D. program.
But my students, they are giving me a hard time for lying and saying that stuff! I explain that you have to tell some white lies to get ahead in life. I don't know what else to say! Did I do the right thing, Jerry?
Pardon me, but it seems to me that this certificate holder is not really looking for a job in science or to actually do any more science than he has already done. His sole purpose, as was Wells apparently, is to enhance his ability to lie for his religion. For any achievement and any group of people, most that deserve it get it and most that do not deserve it won't. There will always be a few cases at the junction of the two subgroups that are or appear to be incorrectly decided. This guy got a PhD. that he shouldn't, in my opinion, have, but his publishing record in the future is likely to destroy any credibility he has gained in short order. The biggest loser here is really the granting institution and program. Their credibility will likely take longer to recover than for Ross's to drop.
I think Caledonian has a good point. It's all well and good to say what the ideal standards are SUPPOSED to be. A PhD is SUPPOSED to indicate independence and ability to formulate original ideas. Let me ask anyone out there who has been involved in a graduate program if they know of a single student who has failed an oral defense for their PhD? I don't mean the apocyphal story from your department, I mean you actually heard about it at the time? I started grad school 11 years ago. Between that and postdoccing, both at large universities, there were probably 100-200 defenses in my departments, and those 0 failures. I don't even know what the process is for a student who fails a defense.
I think much like grade inflation, there is very little incentive for the degree granters to enforce these ideals. You make a student work their ass off for 4-8 years (and as much as we all hope the work involves deep conversations over the meaning of the universe, most of the work involves long periods of tedium puntured by occasional interuptions due to broken equipment and even more infrequent interesting results.). The fact is at the end of that time, you're going to find out that some of them just really cannot be described as "independent thinkers" or "original", even if they passed candidacy exams. You can't necessary know that when they start, so you can't put it all on the admissions process. Do you have the heart to say no? If you don't it sticks out all that much more when you do refuse to grant the degree.
In a properly run department the losers don't get a chance to fail their defense- they are counseled out of the program and sent off with a master's degree (assuming they have met the requirements for that).
...they are counseled out of the program and sent off with a master's degree (assuming they have met the requirements for that).
Having worked my ass off specifically to get a Master's degree, that common practice annoys me. I've just started my PhD, and my M.Sc. was very good practice for it - much better introduction to research than even a high-level honor degree at the undergrad level (which is often the minimum requirement to go from B.Sc. to PhD). I'd rather my M.Sc. was not devalued by awarding something identical to washouts from PhD programs - I don't like feeling like my degree is the same as a consolation prize given to low-grade researchers.
I admittedly don't no much of the back story here, but has anyone considered that this guy is misrepresenting his religious beliefs rather than his scientific ones? It seems implausible to me that a true zealot of the creationist/evangelical bent would be willing to write the dissertation it sounds like this guy did. After all, don't these folks seem to put far more stock in one one says than what one does? Furthermore, it strikes me that fewer people have achieved lasting success as scientific frauds than insincere religious leaders.
Absolutely, Steve, both to your point about publishing results and the proper way to conduct a PhD program. Getting the degree requires a tremendous amount of work, but there are multiple weed-out points (call them safeguards, if you prefer), so that poorer candidates won't wind up throwing away 4-8 years and then failing their defense. The first year of course work is one such point, as is the qualifying exam, and the requirement to constantly meet with one's research adviser. At any of those points, it is possible to determine who should be there, and who should be sent away.
And, if you are qualified to study, then you must also be committed to scientific honesty (accurate reporting of your research results is one such facet of this principle). This is not tantamount to requiring that one accept some materialistic vision of the world. It does mean that one must stand by the veracity of research results, unless they can be shown to be wrong in some fashion.
As an analogy, we require that engineers sign off on the work that they do; if something goes wrong with it, they can be held accountable. Why? By doing the work, and submitting it for actual construction, they certify that (to the best of their knowledge) what they have done is accurate. An engineer who said, "I don't believe the stress/strain relationship actually exists, but I'll use it for building regardless," would not (nor should) be allowed to sign off on any work that they do.
I agree with you.
If i believed that 2+2=5 I would ot expect to be awarded a degree in math. Submitting a thesis that states views counter to your true beliefs impeaches all your future work, how can anyone take you seriously if you reverse your thinking every two weeks. Let's not even talk about a christer lying to get what he wants. This moe has no credibility as a scientist or as a christer.
I admittedly don't no much of the back story here, but has anyone considered that this guy is misrepresenting his religious beliefs rather than his scientific ones? It seems implausible to me that a true zealot of the creationist/evangelical bent would be willing to write the dissertation it sounds like this guy did. After all, don't these folks seem to put far more stock in one one says than what one does? Furthermore, it strikes me that fewer people have achieved lasting success as scientific frauds than insincere religious leaders.
I'm ashamed to admit that I am related by marriage to Marcus. He and his parents are very nice people, but they are the crazy evangelicals of the family.
Ummm ... do the words "Kurt Wise" ring a bell?
FWIW, I'm with Caledonian and Farb on this one. It seems that some commenters are overstating the grandeur of earning a Ph.D. and ignoring that Ross apparently did sound science. Now he's at Liberty University, i.e. he is scientifically irrelevant. So the f*** what? As for RIU, I don't think they're tarnished at all; is Harvard tarnished because of Duane Gish? If graduates choose to make themselves irrelevant, it is not a reflection on the degree granting institution, IMO.
Cheers
Correction, I meant Kurt Wise, not Duane Gish. Sorry.
Ian--
I know one person who did not pass their dissertation defense. (That is, I know this person, not just know "of them".) I know of more cases where people did not pass---but perhaps things are different in the humanities.
More importantly, the defense isn't the whole story. Most of the weeding (at least in the departments I know of) gets done PRIOR to the writing of the actual dissertation: comprehensive exams, dissertation proposals, and the like. I know many people who were "encouraged" to leave their Ph.D. program and many more that were flat out told to leave prior to completing their dissertation. In fact, any committee that would let someone languish for 5-10 years writing a dissertation and not clue the candidate in on his/her grievous academic deficiencies is probably negligent in its duties.
On the other hand, if you were a starry-eyed bible college student who dreamed of disproving evilution, you now have a compatible secular university to which you can apply.
U.R.I. The Creationist-Friendly University!
I'm sure the admissions department is happy. Flocks of dodos will soon be descending on Rhode Island.
Re shaggy- So any ideal that is not universally and fully practiced should simply be abandoned. That's the sort of outlook I would expect from a cynical teenager, but healthy individuals should eventually outgrow it.
As mentioned before, Ross's PhD stands as evidence against the ID creationist view-point being of any use in doing good science. When it actually mattered, he (like everyone else, nearly all the time) had to resort to the reality-based views and methods of science. His fantasy-based ones couldn't cut it - and he knew that full well.
That right there is something that needs more attention.
University resources aren't infinite. This yahoo probably edged out someone more deserving of the investment.
Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate.
I disagree with this, and I'm a current PhD candidate and an agnostic. Fortunately, my field is mathematics, so I don't have matters of faith to grapple with -- the Sylow theorems are true whether or not groups "exist" in any philosophical sense.. As I understand it, a PhD's purpose is to report demonstrated capability, not fitness to do a task. Ross is demonstrably capable of doing rigorous, defensible scientific work. That he chooses to embrace a myth contrary to established scientific knowledge is lamentable, but inasmuch as his doctoral work doesn't promulgate his personal beliefs, I don't really see the problem.
And as to him using his credentials to bolster his viewpoints: I'd think he'd be coming from a place of weakness, having published work directly contrary to his stated beliefs. What's he to do if that work is cited back to him as evidence of an older earth? Anything he cold do in resposne could only damage his credibility as a proponent for a young earth.
About failed graduate student: yes, I know of three students in our department who have failed to pass their oral examinations, and, I also know of two others who, in my opinion, should have failed their exams. Tragically, no system is perfect. At its core, the whole enterprise of science, however, depends on integrity. It speaks volumes about the character of an individual who actively choses dishonesty as a road to academic honors. Of course, it also reaffirms what academicians already know about Liberty Baptist 'College.'
On a more constructive note. there are any number of books on the philosophy of science, two that are perhaps minimally dated (but timeless in any relevant sense) are: The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski and A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Samir Okasha. The former should instill a scientific 'ethos' in any thoughtful individual, the latter provides concise (139 pp) information on the history of scientific thought, power of scientific sxplantion, Scientific reasoning, as well as Science and its Critics. Worthwhile reading.
Am I missing something? Just what does earning a PhD mean? I assumed, layman that I am, that earning a PhD meant that you had mastered a subject. Can't you master a subject in which you don't believe? I see atheists that appear to have a mastery of theological topics. Assuming they earned one, would they be denied a PhD in theology because of their lack of belief? I'm sure that for most it's easier to master a subject in which you believe. But, I'm also sure that lack of belief does not rule out the ability to master a subject.
Is there more to a PhD than masterey of a subject?
This alternate universe in which Harvard is a university struggling to fill its halls with warm bodies and bugger their qualifications...where is it? My blog is in a different universe, and I do not know how you are connecting to it.
Harvard can afford a few Kurt Wises without frightening off good prospective students. URI might not.
I think Farb has it right. So long as he was competent in the process of science, what he believes should be relevant. He has shown he is capable of acting as if he believes in the principles of science.
I thought a PhD was a measure of competence and not related to ideology. If I studied a for a doctor of divinity and passed, my being an athiest should be irrelevant. I think we are not sticking by liberal principles here.
The possibility that Ross will use his Ph.D. to decieve and manipulate the unwary is of far more concern to me than his belief in silly things.
In turn, I see his belief in a silly contradiction to his thesis as more serious than a simple lack of belief in his thesis. Since a great deal of published work later turns out to be wrong, I don't see how a lack of belief would be a problem. But this is more than that - Ross believes in things that directly contradict his thesis, and he did not include these contradictions in his thesis.
What does it mean to master a subject? Some people are arguing that it means being able to echo back your mentor's opinions on a subject.
I'd say it means competency in the background material, demonstrated ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom.
Ross might have gotten the first bit, but that's it.
Maybe someone can comment on this hypothetical. Was there any way Mr. Ross could have constructed a hypothesis for his thesis that accurately represented his YEC beliefs while also demonstrating an authoritative grasp of standard thought in the field of geoscience? It seems to me that if he conceived a novel method of examining/testing the fossil records (and by novel I don't mean the standard YEC talking points) or the methods of dating those records, he'd be demonstrating the sort of knowledge and critical thinking that one expects from a Ph.D. candidate.
And this is probably asking a bit much, but since he'd have to prove his thesis in order to get the degree, the process might have caused him to critically examine his own beliefs. Like I say, a lot to ask. The course of action Mr. Ross chose was not only dishonest, but it also prevented him from stimulating personal growth.
Sorry placebo it seems we crossed, with almost identical points of view.
But I think what is interesting is that there is someone (Ross) who shows the capability of a "first class mind" of being able to think consistently in different ways, but still decides he believes in Fundamentalist nonsense of the grossest kind. Someone who is probably capable of understanding how one might see it all as nonsense. Such compartalisation!
He is a very interesting specimin. Worthy of study I would have thought.
I understand not wanting to grant PhDs to YECs, but I wouldn't go so far as to ban them from graduate studies completely. I've heard too many stories of fundies and YECs who've had their Road to Damascus deconversion because of an enlightening course of study or a compelling professor--E.O. Wilson and Michael Shermer among them. For every BSer like Marcus Ross, there's probably another YEC who explores biology/geology/etc. to "understand the enemy" and end up seeing the truth.
Kurzleg,
In a relatively narrow sense, Ross could have demonstrated the catastrophic deposition of a particular set of deposits (they are found here and there throughout the geologic record). He would have had to water down his ideas, i.e. not refer to a global flood and generally discuss things in a traditional geologic context. However, at least his work would have been vaguely linked to the kind of ideas that YECs espouse.
He doesn't even appear to have done this.
Steve Labonne:
What part of this "...ignoring that Ross apparently did sound science" don't you understand?
My seems to me that you are elevating the earned Ph.D. to something like membership in a priesthood. That is exactly not what it is all about. Perhaps Ross was a hard working and productive member of the lab in which he worked; his advisor might well have been glad to have had him. But you, from some apparent moral high ground, are free to criticize what Ross has accomplished, I suppose. I just think it's all overblown and, in the end, irrelevant to the scientific enterprise.
Cheers
placebo:
This topic came up before, in the initial comment thread on the Ross incident. This is what I said back then:
The great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges once said of the Catholics in his country that they believed in an afterlife but didn't appear to be interested in it. Other than their Mass attendance, you couldn't tell that the matter weighed on their minds. He said that his own situation was the opposite: "I am interested, but I do not believe." (Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian was on his recommended reading list, along with the apocryphal gospels.) He said of Omar Khayyam, mathematician and author of the Rubaiyat, that Khayyam had been agnostic about traditional Islamic beliefs but was still able to debate the most abstruse passages of the Koran in learned theological fashion, since faith is not a prerequisite to theology.
The speculations on URI's and Ross's history, reasons, situation and future are just fluff, since no one posting here seems to actually have facts beyond news reports.
I can't speak for Steve Labonne, but the moral high ground from which I criticize Ross is one in which I didn't lie my way through my PhD.
Man believes in 6000 year old earth. He spends a good part of 4 or so years saying he doesn't believe in a 6000 year old earth. I think his moral ground is somewhat below mine in this regard.
I see atheists that appear to have a mastery of theological topics. Assuming they earned one, would they be denied a PhD in theology because of their lack of belief?
No, but what if such a person would write a thesis/article purportedly offering evidence for the existence of God [cf. evidence for 65-my old mosasaurs], and then held public lectures saying that the evidence is bogus? Or the other way around? Would we not at least call him dishonest?
I think this is a problem that we have to deal with, but I don't know how. Thinking about
the steps a student has to take to fulfill the requirements for a PhD, I don't see where
one could legitimately disqualify such a student.
PZ would have asked him to defend his public statements. Let's say the answer was somthing along the lines of "Oh, I was only kidding in those statements, I was trying to provoke discussion along the lines that Sokal did a few years ago. I don't really believe in that young earth stuff!" How would one respond? Is the guy just a jerk? Or who is
he deceiving, the committee or those who listen to his public statements? I suspect that many of us have played Devil's advocate and argued from positions that we do not hold - though I suspect that we say this is what we are doing when we do it.
To argue that Ross did not understand the science is not necessarily correct. He could have understood it very well, and been able to use it and argue for it, but still not beleived it. Up until very recently, one could have happily used and made quantum mechanics calculations without believing in the probabilistic nature of the world that quantum mechanics implies. In fact, many physicists did just that! Should they have their degrees taken away? For sure, the evidence against YEC is overwhelming whereas that for the probabilistic nature of the world has not been, at least until recently.
I wonder what would have happened if RIU had not granted this bounder a degree on the basis of his beliefs? If he had sued, would he have stood a good chance of winning?
The attitude of Ross angers me greatly, but I'm uncertain how one can deal with people like him. So far, I've not seen any suggestions that are really workable.
Word.
I think creationists should be actively encouraged to take degrees in Geosciences. The exposure to scientific ideas and thinking would do them good. So what if the immediate peer-pressure on one or two of them leads them into tell lies (ie: "give false witness")? I am sure that in far more cases the exposure will lead the student to realize the pathetic inadequacy of creationism.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what the downside is to URI issuing a statement that Ross is an anti-scientific bag of creationist script-reciting shit and they apologize to the world for granting him the Ph.D. and henceforth refuse to recognize it.
What's the downside?
ANd please don't say "lawsuit" without describing the complaint and factual basis for the suit in detail.
What does it mean to master a subject? Some people are arguing that it means being able to echo back your mentor's opinions on a subject.
I'd say it means competency in the background material, demonstrated ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom.
Ross might have gotten the first bit, but that's it.
Posted by: PZ Myers
What if Marcus Ross was not a YEC at the time that he earned his PhD, but did believe in a multi-billion year old earth, evolution, and so on? Let's throw in that he is an atheist too. Now, fast forward ahead 5 years and Ross has had an epiphany. For whatever reason Jesus has entered his life, he literally interprets the Bible and is now a YEC. Does this make his PhD less valid? Has he lost his ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom? Should we refer to him as a "former PhD?"
"The attitude of Ross angers me greatly, but I'm uncertain how one can deal with people like him. So far, I've not seen any suggestions that are really workable."
The practical answer is simple; he and his Ph.D. will simply be ignored by the scientific estabilishment. He made his bed and will have to sleep in it; I still fail to see is as any kind of threat to science or the integrity of what it means to earn a Ph.D.
Cheers
The attitude of Ross angers me greatly, but I'm uncertain how one can deal with people like him. So far, I've not seen any suggestions that are really workable.
Funny, I've seen several, including my own.
Why doesn't explain exactly why these suggestions aren't "workable"? That is, explain them without engaging in hyperbolic anecdotes about how people will be denied Ph.D.s based on their pizza topping preferences (guess what -- shit like that happens already and the world continues to turn).
Yes, demonstrated capability to continue to contribute to scientific knowledge. Ross' YEC beliefs cast doubt on that capability -- did anyone really think he was going to continue to produce scientific output that he really didn't believe in? I would seriously question whether he could, without an advisor to guide him. It's possible his committee felt otherwise, but I can't help but wonder if they were afraid of causing a stir by booting him out of the program earlier on.
On a related note: PhD recipients are used to judge their advisors, to some extent. I wonder how Ross' advisor will fare in the aftermath of this.
The practical answer is simple; he and his Ph.D. will simply be ignored by the scientific estabilishment. He made his bed and will have to sleep in it
Actually, the practical answer is that Ross will not be ignored. His bed will include turds tossed into it on a regular basis by the likes of yours truly and others.
Fuckers like George Deutsch and Casey Luskin and Hannah Maxson -- they are NEVER forgotten. They are NEVER ignored. At least, not until they apologize.
[tries to suppress laughter]
Does that mean you judge the work of other scientists by how prestigious the school is they get their degree from? How interesting ...
Otherwise, why would a person looking to get their own degree and do their own work really care?
I raised Kurt Wise because you asked whether the "next SJ Gould" would shy away from URI because it gave a degree in paleontology to a YEC. Well, if you really are the next Gould you wouldn't because you'd give a YEC one yourself.
The awarding of a PhD is reflective only of the recipient's perceived fitness at the time. Holding a PhD simply means that, at some point in the past, the recipient had the potential to contribute to knowledge.
I would simply refer to the person you describe as a "former scientist."
Tristram Brelstaff:
In an ideal world, this could be a great idea, but what about the concern already raised — by Hank Fox among others — that the University's resources are limited? Suppose you had to decide between two candidates for a doctoral-study position, one of whom was a bushy-tailed Creationist who could potentially be "clued in", while the other was an honest supporter of science ready to do real scientific work. Which is more important to the doctoral adviser and the University as a whole, training a new scientist or taking a chance at "reforming" a Creationist (perhaps a long shot indeed)? Knowing that we have to devote some of our energy to expunging this great evil, doesn't it make more sense to spend the money and time educating the general public, schoolchildren and teenagers?
I haven't seen an in-depth description of which style of YEC Ross actually believes in. So let me construct my best case defense, and see if anyone would give someone who believed this a PH.D.
Assume Gosse theory - the universe was created 6K years ago, but was created 'full grown'. We can still learn things (and probably things the creator wanted us to know) by studying the faked evidence. When functioning in scientist mode, we say 'assuming none of the evidence was faked, here are the conclusion we can draw'. Thus we can figure out where to look for oil, learn about how the creator implemented his design template on the varying animals, etc.
On Sundays in church, we ignore the fakery and recognize the creator's goodness in making the world for us, and letting us 'peek behind the curtain' and know what really happened.
GWW wrote:
"Actually, the practical answer is that Ross will not be ignored. His bed will include turds tossed into it on a regular basis by the likes of yours truly and others."
Explain how what you have stated actually adds anything to the metaphor of making his own bed and having to sleep in it. Maybe you are just titillated by seeing yourself be vulgar in public? But I could be wrong.
Cheers
I think that the parents of students at Liberty University ought to start a campaign against having him teach their children; after all, they spent a great deal of money for their children to be educated in a Christian setting, and now their children are being taught by an admitted liar. He really shouldn't have a safe haven anywhere. He obviously won't do science, and he's a bad example of a Christian.
Explain how what you have stated actually adds anything to the metaphor of making his own bed and having to sleep in it.
You want me to do some push-ups, too, Shaggy?
I have a better idea: go clean out your dog's colon.
People are talking about his defense as if he just had to compartmentalize his beliefs in one are apart from an entirely different area. That's not exactly what he did. This is a YEC guy presenting data on fossils he said were millions of years old. In other words, he presented data to his committee that he believed to be false. At the very least (and that's being generous), this is intellectually dishonest.
Would you also support the awarding of a PhD to a student that presented a bunch of electrical measurements, even though he was fairly confident the equipment was malfunctioning?
This may depend on how he formulated his YEC beliefs.
I recall hearing an interview with an Orthodox rabbi who held the following (errors are of my memory):
1) God does not lie - by word or deed.
2) God gives us many things we can't understand, though we must try.
3) God gave us his word - the Torah, etc. - which say YEC
4) God gave us senses and intelligence to understand his deeds - the world we live in - and it indicates that modern science is correct.
5) Since God does not lie, both of these are true, and how they are both true is one of the things we don't, or can't understand.
I'd have no problem with somebody like that getting a PhD. I doubt Mr. Ross is at that level, though.
Sorry people ... but if you want a layperson's view I'd say the URI and this bloke are scum.
Why? Because we laypeople rely on you PhD's to be honest, to be competent, and to know the meaning of the title DOCTOR (teacher). We need you to hold sacred all that entails.
I really could not care less about his beliefs - he's welcome to them in his own house. But I do care that he be true to discipline and principles of his PhD when he's acting as a PhD.
Yup... he can say "I don't believe in what we'll come with because of my faith-system ... but I'll show you in proper scientific fashion how to get to the thing I don't believe in."
He can also challenge "our" theories and do REAL (like I'd love to see that!!) scientific work to show why what he believes his YEC view is right. But betrays the trust we should be able to put in him.
I mean .. for example .. my doctor may believe that only Jeebus heals us... but as long as she is true to her profession in secular fashion .. so what. If on the hand she prays in lieu of practicing good medicine.. and hides her true "doctoring" from me .. well that's at best pretty low (assuming I have a minor illness).. and at worst felony criminal (say if I die from lack of treatment I could have had)!!!
I think it is fair to ask .. what will you "teach" and "how" ... because being congruent with your degree and INTEGRITY COUNT!!!!!!!
Science is not a priesthood of Truth; it is a method to discover truth that is operational and provisional. If Ross used defendable scientific methods to arrive at the operational and provisional truth presented in his thesis, it doesn't scientifically matter one iota what his whacky personal beliefs are or where he chooses to earn his income. Truly the attacks on Ross in this thread are examples of academic insecurity (personal or projected) if I've ever seen them.
I'm hearing several people saying basically that this is no big deal, and that someone's personal beliefs don't neccessarily mean they can't do science. To that I say you are underestimating the extent to which an old earth is crucial to understanding geology and paleontology. Like many subjects, without one or two key concepts in place, the whole field doesn't mean a whole lot -- like biology before Darwin. You just have a bunch of descriptions. Key concepts in the earth sciences include an old earth, uniformitarianism, and (to a lesser degree) plate tectonics. Without these concepts, all you have is a bunch of rocks. So people who think this is no big deal should understand that this guy rejects the very foundations (which have volumes and volumes of proof) of the field he prusued a PhD in. A 6,000-year-old earth is completely incompatible with modern geology.
"What if Marcus Ross was not a YEC at the time that he earned his PhD, ... fast forward ahead 5 years ... For whatever reason Jesus has entered his life, he literally interprets the Bible and is now a YEC. Does this make his PhD less valid?"
No, but it means his future work in the earth sciences is probably not reliable, because he's rejected the basic foundations of the science. Don't you see? It's like a chemist rejecting the existence of molecules. It just can't work.
"Has he lost his ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom? Should we refer to him as a "former PhD?"
Yes. See above. Without a grounding in an old earth, geology is a mineral collection. And without an ability to crituque recieved wisdom, he'd certainly not be doing any novel science.
At another blog site, in a discussion of the Ross case, I made, by way of comparison, the following comment:
"What would we say about someone who earned a PhD in astronomy while simultaneously openly advocating the position that the Earth is at the center of the Universe? Would it be right to hire this person to teach astronomy? I think not. Well, maybe at Liberty University they would."
Well, somehow, I managed to hook a student from Libery University who replied:
"Dr. Ross teaches Creation Studies at Liberty University. I have taken the class. We spent several weeks discussing Evolution. We discussed BOTH the supporting evidence and the inexplicable gaping holes of the scientific religion. He was very knowledgeable on the subject matter.
I think your views on Dr. Ross, Liberty University, and Jerry Falwell are quite pretentious."
Oy vey! Is there any way we can sue for educational malpractice? Too bad there's no license that can be revoked.
Shaggy, I think you fail to see the problem.
What good is a Phd based on lies?
People are talking about his defense as if he just had to compartmentalize his beliefs in one are apart from an entirely different area. That's not exactly what he did. This is a YEC guy presenting data on fossils he said were millions of years old. In other words, he presented data to his committee that he believed to be false. At the very least (and that's being generous), this is intellectually dishonest.
Greenwald posted a link to Altemeyer's new book on authoritians. Take a look at chapters 3 & 4, where he discusses exactly the extraordinary abilities of the high RWA thinker to compartmentalize contradictory statements and to ignore intellectual dishonesty.
Narc (comment 79) raises a good point. With the case of Ross, I understand that his committee was aware beforehand of his beliefs. But, how would one detect a deliberate deception. I suspect that many of us with research groups have had worries about a student or postdoc faking data, publishing the results and only afterwards having the deception come to light. We can ask questions, scrutinize the data, but without doing the experiment ourselves, one can never be 100% certain of the results.
On another note, there appear to be several threads where understanding and belief appear to be conflated. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if we would grant Newton or Maxwell a PhD? According to many, some of the scientific beliefs of Linus Pauling were not borne out by evidence and were close to being described as crackpot ideas. Yet I doubt that many would say that Pauling should be cast headlong from the halls of science. My point is that I suspect the private of beliefs of many individual scientists are at times at odds with science.
I find myself in two minds. Ross was not duplicitous - he was, to all accounts, open about his beliefs. However, as Steve LaBonne has pointed out, he betrayed the ideal of personal honesty and the search for truth that most of us aspire to. In addition, his motivations for getting a PhD are at best, highly suspect. Perhaps GWW is correct, and we should challenge such people as Ross on the science. Who knows, perhaps he will continue to produce competent (maybe even good) science irrespective of his private beliefs? If he crosses that line and tries to use his qualifications to make ludicrous claims, then we can deal with him as we have dealt with others - though sadly, I note that the likes of Hugh Ross continue to abuse physics and are listened to by many.
It seems relatively straightforward to use that response to fish for a denunciation of creationism:
In that hypothetical universe, every time Ross had something to say about creationism, his explanation that creationism was a joke could be brought up and used to make creationists suspicious of him.
I think that the words "believe" and "belief" are redd herrings here. These are religious words.
Scientists do not "believe" their results. The "sign off" on them as someone said above. The argue them according to established scientific principles, using evidence and scientific reasoning. They submit their ideas to the scientific community and use scientific arguments to defend it against scientific criticism.
What this guy did was develop a scientific idea while subordinating it to ideas which are unscientific in origin and which cannot be scientifically defended, and without submitting these other ideas to scientific criticism.
That's always been the weak spot of creationism and ID. They always set a flimsy and not very detailed structure of facts, non-facts, arguments, and sophistries against the whole enormous body of biological science (which assumes evolution even when it does not argue for it).
There are similar problems with tenure.
Have a certain biochemist in mind?
For whatever reason Jesus has entered his life, he literally interprets the Bible and is now a YEC. Does this make his PhD less valid?
I remember linking to a web site of an astronomer who was, as I recall, a geocentrist. He got his Ph.D. in astronomy, then had the "epiphany" you describe. I think this happens more than we recognize. Ross may be a prominent case, but he's hardly an isolated one.
He is a very interesting specimin. Worthy of study I would have thought.
I think that's the ticket. We need to study these people. There are a lot of superstitious Ph.D. holders out there and it's a bizarre social phenomenon. Is this happening only in America? What other factors correlate? Religiosity in youth? Economic class, personality and identity styles, etc? America is going through a Jesus-crazy phase--is this also a phase? What about the children of these people, etc.
In addition, I agree that URI needs to issue a statement. Ross has essentially repudiated his education, and anyway, this isn't a free-for-all.
I understand not wanting to grant PhDs to YECs, but I wouldn't go so far as to ban them from graduate studies completely. I've heard too many stories of fundies and YECs who've had their Road to Damascus deconversion because of an enlightening course of study or a compelling professor--E.O. Wilson and Michael Shermer among them. For every BSer like Marcus Ross, there's probably another YEC who explores biology/geology/etc. to "understand the enemy" and end up seeing the truth.
There was such a YEC who later changed his mind about the age of the earth and evolution in the film Kansas vs. Darwin. As he struggled with his crisis of faith, he had help from a pastor who accepts evolution. That was a point that the filmmaker made in our discussion after the screening; these people need a gentle guide out of their delusions. They don't need an angry response. That's hard because this crap makes me (as you all know) just furious!
The poor schmuck is probably just trying to avoid being disinherited.
He's in a world of hurt.
Quoting a student who took Ross' class:
We discussed BOTH the supporting evidence and the inexplicable gaping holes of the scientific religion.
[sigh] We know pretty much what that means, don't we? [puke]
To those who say, "Well, Ross is getting the academic obscurity he deserves", I must point out that he is probably getting exactly what he wanted: a job in the fundamentalist college system, and the chance to trade on his credentials to get credibility as a Real Genyoowine Expert on Evilution ("See? Even the Evilutionists had to admit that when they gave me this purty diploma!"). A Daniel who emerged unscathed from the lions' den!
Expect him to start showing up on the Creationist lecture circuit.
(This is of course, separate from the question of whether there is any legitimate means within the degree-granting process to prevent things like this from happening).
And in an idea world, at every lecture someone would ask him why he lied in his thesis. I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that Liberty would feel that he's still worthy of working there after he admitted that in his dissertation he said that fossils were millions of years old, but that he didn't believe it.
Let me make it clear that I'm trying to understand why Marcus Ross' PhD is even an issue. I don't know enough on this topic to do much more than ask questions. But, there appears to be an element of unfairness towards Ross and the Creationists with these criticisms and attacks. On the one hand, because of their poor academic credentials, many leading Creationists are mocked and dismissed by evolution proponents. Now we have Ross who earns the credentials and he gets attacked. How can the pursuit of knowledge be criticized? In the long run, as long as we keep the flow of ideas open, how can that do anything but good for society?
I myself am an atheist, bound to the natural world. That does not mean that I don't have a curiosity as to what makes the Christian mind work. Even more so, I live in a predominantly Christian society. I would be remiss in not attempting to learn about and understand the Christian mindset. We can flip that around and put Ross in a similar situation. As a Young Earth Creationist he is in the minority among paleontologists. He would be remiss if he did not attempt to learn the predominant views in his field which he did while earning his PhD.
I do realize that Ross can use his PhD in paleontology to give his YEC views credibility. But, I think that is preferable to a system that rations knowledge and degrees only to those who believe like the consensus.
As a layperson but an avid reader, I find this debate interesting but I can't say I really have a problem with the university's choice in the matter. It really doesn't matter to me at all. I am not going to believe the arguments of anyone just because he or she has a doctorate. It is the truth and merits of an argument that are important not degrees. As in all matters, I am open to being convinced of just about anything but I find it very unlikely that he will say anything I haven't heard and rejected before. Even if he had a Noble Prize(hypothetically), that wouldn't affect the merit of his position in my mind. I also doubt it will win any more converts to the creationist camp either. It might prevent a few from leaving though.
I also say this because I happened to have graduated from Liberty University (Dr. Ross was not there at the time as far as I know), which inevitably if anyone has heard of the place at all, causes the hearer to make certain hasty and fallacious judgments about my beliefs in regards to many matters. The truth is rather different (agnostic, classic liberal, etc). I can't say that most people who went there when I did were like me, but there were a few of us. It is a university and it does have a library, which I made extensive use of the option of inter-library loaning material such as Foucault's History of Sexuality, Karma Sutra, and a bunch of works by Noam Chomsky among others. I'm not going to get into why I went there, but let me assure you that any assumptions about my beliefs due to guilt by association would be mostly wrong.
Really, what he did is not all that different to what I had to do at there to graduate. There were required classes of a religious nature that I took where, due to how the professors worded the questions on exams, I had to state what I did not believe to be true to pass the class. Other professors worded the questions more objectively as "this is what the book states"--those I could answer honestly. Originally, I answered according to what I believed to be true (regardless of what I knew the professor wanted) and did rather poorly. Another professor of mine advised me that "an exam is not a doctrinal statement," and I shouldn't be concerned with the truth of the answer but passing. I have since taken his advice in all my subsequent classes (including ones at my post-baccalaureate studies at non-religious based universities). A class is, of course, not a thesis committee.
Incidentally, in the only science course I took there (excluding linguistics ones which are irrelevant here), honors biology, the subject matter of "creationism" did not come up at all other than a few asides from the professor about his personal beliefs. We used a standard biology textbook, the lectures were about evolution, and the exams were made and graded on that (which, for the majority of the class, meant they had to state something was a fact that they did not believe in). From their perspective, I suppose they wanted the students to get to know the other perspective.
For the record, when I went there, the "Creation Science" class was a joke. It consisted of three exam--pass fail (180/300 to pass); I only went the first day and one exam days. Thus, I cannot speak about the content other than I did find the argument for the historicity of the flood based on the folk etymology of modern Chinese characters as confirmed by one anonymous Chinese woman to be rather humorous as the argument displayed a gross ignorance of any understanding of language or the principles of logic.
All that said, I understand why scientists would be concerned. As an outsider, it's not really my place to have an opinion. I don't pretend to have the background knowledge to understand most scientific debates. Nevertheless, my main point is that we non-scientists don't base our beliefs on the qualifications of the speaker but the merits of the argument and how much we understand it. Well, at least I hope we do.
As an aside, you will make more teaching at a public school in Lynchburg than as a professor at Liberty University. I forget the exact figure but he won't exactly be living in luxury.
"I still can't wrap my brain around the idea that Liberty would feel that he's still worthy of working there after he admitted that in his dissertation he said that fossils were millions of years old, but that he didn't believe it. "
Simple. He's on their team now. He's wearing their jersey. He's a top round draft pick with a lot of talent (i.e., a command of sciencey words), and a degree from a Division 1 program (a mid-major, admittedly). That's all that matters.
Ummm ... do the words "Kurt Wise" ring a bell?
Yes, and if I were getting my Ph.D., I wouldn't waste my time at Harvard either, but for a different reason. Unless things have changed since I last looked into this, they pride themselves on not recruiting from their own ranks--at least in the science department--so if you should ever want to teach at Harvard you're out of luck if they granted your Ph.D.
No, it's not really a similar situation. To practice science with integrity, you have to commit to the scientific process and stand behind the results of your research. The use of the word "believe" is unfortunate in this case, because it evokes the false symmetry you are arguing here.
I agree with Ichthyic that there are cases which will be difficult, because it will be harder to discern what the student's intent is. And in some cases, admissions committees will have to judge between being too sensitive or too specific (in other words, too many false positives or false negatives) in deciding who to admit. This was not one of those cases--apparently, in his admission statement, Ross stated that he was a YEC. By definition, he would have to go into the program with the intent to ignore the evidence in the field he claimed to want to become a scholar in. This intent demonstrates a lack of scholarly integrity, and it should have been a huge red flag to the admissions committee, as well as to the people who wrote him recommendations to the program.
I've actually been in this situation, though as a reference for a student, not making the admission decision. One of my most brilliant students became a YEC after we had been working together for a couple of years.
Never having survived having my own face blown off by an explosive, I'm certainly not about to tell someone who has had that experience that if they find meaning to go on by believing it's God's purpose somehow, that they shouldn't find consolation where they can. But I did tell him straight up that I couldn't write him a reco to any biological sciences program for two reasons: 1) I couldn't say with integrity to the committee that I trusted his capacity to do original research in the field when it clashed with his beliefs, and 2) in programs where applicant/admission ratios are 10/1 or more, I couldn't justify the risk of taking the space from someone who would do the actual science. By that, I mean not just doing what the advisor assigned, but actually taking the initiative to drive the original science further.
He considered it, and decided that he would be happier with his religious beliefs in engineering than in biology, and it is working out wonderfully for him. Ross should have had the integrity, like my student had, to commit either to his religion, or to fully practicing science that conflicted with his religion. By trying to have it both ways, I doubt either scientists or the religious will trust him now, except the people who are credulous enough to believe anything said by someone with a PhD.
It's really sad that Ross squandered something so valuable as being entrusted as a scholar for such petty returns--reminds me of something about birthright and porridge...
From ratemyprofessors.com:
"He is "cutting-edge", one of only a few ID proponent paleontologists in the world"
*sigh* 'Cutting edge' means espousing a worldview that has been obsolete for a few hundred years?
I have to admit that as a non-PhD non-scientist, I'm torn. I think that the strongest argument against him is that he has essentially skirted the peer review process for what he's teaching. He got peer review on something that he knew would slide by, and now he's trying to apply that stamp of approval to ideas that he wasn't able to defend.
On the other hand, I can't really see what a reasonable university could do about something like that this isn't tantamount to convicting people of thought crime. Even worse, if universities did start weeding out based on ideology rather than actual research, the thousands of excellent researchers who worked hard for their PhDs could simply be dismissed as a good old boys club. There's already a large contingent of creationists who think that a PhD just means that you stood before a board and renounced God. Imagine what rejecting an applicant over young earth creationism would do for their argument.
I can't see how we can worry about lending creationist claims false legitimacy by granting a degree but not worrying about severely damaging the legitimacy of serious researchers by performing a religious test. I think that the latter is far more damaging. Ethically, I can't say I'd be chomping at the bit to grant the degree. Practically speaking, I think that had he been rejected, it would have done more harm than good.
It is not a religious test to say that someone who applies to a program in the sciences with the explicit intention of ignoring the scientific evidence in the field demonstrates a lack of the integrity that is essential in an independent investigator. Anyone who displays that lack of integrity for whatever reason, not just Ross' religious one, would fit that criterion.
I disagree. Science is based on trust, and if someone consciously betrays that trust by committing research fraud, in the worst case people can die by trusting recommendations that come out of that fraudulent research. Ross has made it eminently clear that he does not have any problem with publishing research he doesn't stand behind. As a result of that ethical disconnect, I wouldn't trust him to cat-sit, much less to teach students entrusted to him about essential scientific integrity, or to carry out unsupervised research.
Exactly. What flaw can you point out with the results he published? For that matter, what flaw can you show to us in his coursework? His research? His test results?
If he completed all of the requirements and met the same standards as the other students, his actual beliefs are irrelevant.
You have a hammer. No matter how much you try to convince yourself and everyone else that the problem is a nail, the hammer is not the tool that's needed.
Instead of complaining that some university awarded a Ph.D. to a lying fool who met all the standards and jumped through all the hoops, perhaps it would be more productive to demonstrate why going through the process of getting a Ph.D. in order to lend your unscientific beliefs credibility is a bad idea.
So don't hire him to teach. Or conduct research, supervised or not. Or cat-sit.
(Incidentally, it's amazing how much higher your standards are for people with Ph.D.s than politicians. I can't think of any candidates, from any party, who would meet the criteria you've set for cat-sitting - and running a city is much, much harder, not to mention a country. How do you vote with a clean conscience?)
Oh, and I say that as someone that my own PhD admissions committee went back and forth on over admitting. Flitting from French and German to computer science and Tibetan to dropping out and working back to Cambodian studies and then to practicing massage with refugee patients looks on paper like someone with a serious focus problem.
In cases that look like mine, admissions committees always have to balance the risk of admitting a total flake with passing up someone who'll flourish with the proper mentoring, and those decisions will always be difficult and risky. I'm grateful that my program took a chance on me, and that I got the mentoring I did.
But as unfocused as I may have looked at admission, I clearly had no intention of explicitly ignoring all the evidence in my field just to get my PhD ticket punched. And Ross basically stated as much when he applied, and URI took a spot that another student might have used to develop into a real scientist, and gave it to him instead to do just that. And that's the part that I really don't get.
Just fine, thanks for asking.
For some reason, Ross getting his Ph.D. in this manner reminds me of O'Brien writing "The Book" used by the Brotherhood in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Ah, so you've chosen to deal with the cognitive dissoncance by being too stupid to recognize it. Interesting.
Yeah, that must be it.
I agree: he shouldn't have been admitted to the program, let alone granted a degree.
A commenter from a previous thread on the subject was comparing his situation to that of an unbeliever studying comparative religion. It's a fair analogy ... but let's look at that.
If I was on a Div School admissions committee looking at applicants, I'd have no problems admitting, say, a nice, normal atheist to study Jewish religous theory. But a member of a neo-nazi group? No.
It's not a matter of "can the student regurgitate the requisite material to his committee and write a defensible thesis" but "will this student do us honor or piss all over us"? Neo-nazis are as poisonous to a Div School as Creationists are to a science department.
Academic integrity requires more than just verifying whether a student can jump through the standard hoops.
Ross may have been encouraged to develop a "front" of real science by his instructors. I go to one of the largest and most prestigious universities in Australia and on the first day of our first biology lecture we were informed that approimately 1/3 of the people sitting in the room will not beleive the biology that is put in front of them because of thier religion. However, if you can still give the answer that the lecturer has asked you to learn for the exam then that is perfectly alright and your religion will have no influence on your final mark......but being the first year I imagine our lecturer (whom I respect greatly) was simply trying to avoid numerous confrontations with religious types (the subect for that year had 2500 students and this particular lecturer's teaching load was considerable). In second year I suspect there would be far fewer such students and maybe then maybe he might be more inclined to spare the time for a few debates ;-)
Narc went over this before, but I see people arguing the contrary are pretty much ignoring his comments. I challenge Caledonian (and others, why not?) to come up with a reasonable refutation of this position:
Ross told his PhD committee one thing, and announced in public that he was lying to get the PhD. This means that he either (a) believed that his results were flawed or (b) believed that his premises were flawed. This is, in a very real sense, falsified research. The research is not a valid representation because the researcher is saying that it is not.
To those who are claiming that the degree is based on the research, not the person: bullshit. It's not "Marcus Ross' Doctoral Dissertation, PhD"; it's "Marcus Ross, PhD". So if the researcher is saying the dissertation is not valid, then he is rejecting the degree.
There is no difference between Ross and a researcher who gives placebos to the test group, publishes results claiming that the drug he was testing cures cancer, and goes on the news admitting to giving placebos. Would you expect FDA approval based on his reports? Even if the drug works, his research was not valid.
Now tell me, Caledonian (or others) why it is that you believe someone should be given a doctorate when they are admitting to falsifying their research? The only people who should be awarded for turning in work that they believe is false are writers of fiction.
I'm in a religious studies doctoral program, and I don't know anyone who uses a theoretical model for their work that they don't accept as valid: whether sociological, psychological, anthropological, critical historical, etc...
On a number of occasions (program application, funding/awards applications, progress reports, comprehensive exams, etc...) I have had to defend my use of particular elements of social theory to show both a clear understanding, and their utility in relation to my topic. I don't know how Ross could have accomplished that without seriously compromising his beliefs. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I definitely don't have the fortitude to keep up that kind of act for years and years. I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror after the first week.
No one cares that I'm an agnostic who studies medieval religion from a sociological perspective. But I would never have survived if I couldn't defend my methodology and theoretical approach. I certainly wouldn't be able to defend it if I thought it was all lies.
I have no idea how Ross made it so far without going bat-shit crazy. I couldn't have spend so much time studying sociology if I thought it was BS.
Wrong. Falsified research is what happens when someone creates false data. Publishing the data you actually collected while secretly believing that it was put there by Satan to mislead you is not "falsifying" it.
You use words incorrectly when it permits you to reach the conclusion you wish. Trying to reach you with reasonable arguments is therefore hopeless. What you almost certainly actually want me to do is produce a counterargument that satisfies the competing preferences in your mind, a rationalization that is more satisfying than the one you've already got. Like using rationality on a Creationist, that's a waste of time, because the invalid arguments you've produced yourself will always be sweeter than the invalid arguments of others, which is precisely why the best cult leaders let people create their own rationalizations for the nutty doctrines they're supposed to believe.
He's an intellectual fraud and full of shit. From an historian's perspective - and at the risk of invoking Godwin - it's no different to someone spending four years studying evidence from the Holocaust, writing it up into a thesis, defending it, being passed, then stating in public that they didn't believe the Holocaust really happened, never had, and never would. And all to be able to trade credibility on a phoney degree.
Sorry, got I here a bit late. Mardi gras and all, does anyone know whether Ross has published in the refereed literature ? I tried to run a medline search, but entering Ross M threw back over 2000 entries. And who's got the time. It would seem interesting to hear an editor's take on someone's publication who then publicly states that what he's published is total crap.
Caledonian,
Nice ad hominem.
Simply put: Ross believes the data is false. He submitted it to be his doctoral thesis, while believing it was false.
If Ross was correct (i.e., his data was false, and he submitted it knowing that it was false), nobody would think he deserves his PhD. You want to award him a PhD only because he is dead wrong.
If someone obtained data, came to valid conclusions, and was later proven wrong (i.e. there was another, better reason for the conclusions) I would say they were still worthy of the PhD. Some jackass who lies to get a degree so he can then use that degree to attack the position his thesis makes, not so much.
One more thing: if he put in data believing it was wrong, what makes you so sure he didn't also put in data that is wrong? After all, to him, it's all wrong, so why verify results properly? How do you apply the common-sense rule when you don't have any?
I'm a layman as well, but my impression is that earning a Ph.D. meant that you had not merely mastered a subject, but that you had done original research and/or scholarship that contributed to your field in a meaningful way.
I could be wrong about that, though.
Should he have been granted the degree? He obviously satisfied the requirements of the program. Like Wells, it's apparent that his only motivation for obtaining the degree was to give the Creationist side an illusion of credibility, rather than to contribute to his field in a meaningful way. Assuming that the scholarship was sufficiently rigorous, though, can you deny a degree solely because of the candidate's motives? Some other possible cases come to mind:
etc., etc., etc.
As far as Ross is concerned, it doesn't matter what kind of research he does from now on, or if he does any at all, nor will it matter to anyone at Liberty what heretical science he did to earn the degree. All that matters is that he has the Ph.D. It's merely a prop for propaganda.
No, you idiot, that's not an ad hominem. It's not even an insult.
Let me see, you compared me to a creationist and a cult member, and said that I am incapable of understanding reason.
Not ad hominem. Right. And I am not the Church Lady.
It could be possible to honestly believe in young earth creationism and practice biology competently, if you were the strictest kind of anti-realist, maintaining that science does not aim for theories that are "true", but rather for theories that best "save the appearances", that is, predict phenomena.
However, I can't see any honest motivation for pursuing a degree in a non-applied science like paleobiology if you think that you already know the truth from the Bible, and don't think that science will match up. Applied sciences could be different (e.g. an oil prospector might think that God put the oil there along with the dinosaur fossils, but knows that he'll find more oil if he uses geology rather than Exodus). In the end, I have to agree that it looks like Ross just wanted a degree to lend himself some false credibility.
W hd smlr prblm wth PhD stdnt n glgy n r dprtmnt fw yrs g. Lckly w fnd t h ws mslm, nd flnkd hm t bfr h cld gt t nd sprd hs prpgnd.
I have expressed my opinion on this in a number of places, including on Larry's site. But I want to add this:
There is no really good model for this. It is very unusual for someone to enter a PhD program with a belief that is entirely (or even somewhat) antithetical to the central dogma of the field, "go along with it" for several years just to get the PhD, etc.
This is so odd that it is hard to get a grip on the philosophical basis for any of the arguments people are making on one side or the other.
Many commenters are commenting without an understanding of what a PhD is, the difference between a PhD and an MA, or even a PhD and a BA, and many commentators are confusing "candidacy" with "thesis" with "PhD" and so on.
Once that is straightened out, we always have the same thing. This is the advisors fault. It is almost always the advisors fault (Advisors are the mother's of PhD land ... it is always their fault).
This is not to say that this Joker who got his PhD can ever be trusted ... he can't. But this would not have happened had the advisors been doing their jobs.
Still, there is not in fact a clean way to describe, model, or re-work this. This is the advisor's fault like it is the captain's fault when a ship sinks, even if the sequence of events that caused the ship to sink included some very unexpected and un-trained for and un-prepared for eventualities.