Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[sfs]

No, I figured - sounds about the same as any of us sciency types on this board. But of course because we refuse to play along with AV's Pluto conspiracy theory, that means we never question anything......

As an aside, Alan Boss has an amusing account of the battles surrounding the Pluto decision in his book, The Crowded Universe. Particularly nice was the committee vote that split, seven votes for keeping Pluto as a planet, 7 votes against, and 7 votes for a compromise -- out of 19 committee members. That committee failed to reach a decision, and was replaced by another committee whose decision was rejected. Lots of fun.

 

[Super_Rational]

AV should come along to our journal clubs. Unquestioning acceptance my...

I think I've challenged some anti-science people on this forum to attend university seminars (in the department of their choice) and ask the speaker some real "stinging" questions that would uncover all these scientific "conspiracies" and "bad science." So far no takers. Can't imagine as to why...

...which makes me wonder, have none of these people been to a church service??? I've yet to see anyone raise their hand there & dispute what the "speaker" said. Amazing how everyone in there seems to agree 100%.

 

[Psudopod]

Really?

No books to update? No models to rebuild? No programs to rewrite? No...
p

No. Let me put it to you this way. If tomorrow there was a vote to lable Fords as brum brum machines, rather than cars it would not change what we understood about the internal combustion engine. Even if it was a fixed vote that no one agreed with, none of our understanding would change.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if it was a fixed vote that no one agreed with, none of our understanding would change.

Don't bother to blush; after all, every denomination has its skeletons, don't they?

I haven't see one person -- not one* -- decry this rigged voting; but Christianity gets its share of coverage from you guys, doesn't it?

In fact, I've seen more than one, "So what?"

As if to say, "Ya, I'd do it too."

* And I'll admit, I don't cruise the threads here, either.

 

[Psudopod]

Don't bother to blush; after all, every denomination has its skeletons, don't they?

I haven't see one person -- not one* -- decry this rigged voting; but Christianity gets its share of coverage from you guys, doesn't it?

In fact, I've seen more than one, "So what?"

As if to say, "Ya, I'd do it too."

I have no idea if it was or not. If it was, then that’s bad on principle, but my point still stands: none of our understanding has changed. Just the label we use.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea if it was or not.

32

Now you do.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-9/#post56120574
I have no idea if it was or not.
32

Now you do.

I must have missed the bit where the vote was rigged, but again, that’s a moral issue. It doesn’t change our understanding. It doesn’t change the science.

Agreed?

 

[AV1611VET]

I must have missed the bit where the vote was rigged, but again, that’s a moral issue. It doesn’t change our understanding. It doesn’t change the science.

You read all that, and you don't think the vote was rigged?

Wow.

How about those who do think it was rigged, shrug their shoulders and say, "So what?"

 

[sandwiches]

You read all that, and you don't think the vote was rigged?

Wow.

How about those who do think it was rigged, shrug their shoulders and say, "So what?"

If it's true what Miss Laurel Kornfeld said, then it's pretty fishy. However, I also find fishy that there's no sources that indicate that what the decision was done by violating AIU bylaws. In fact, the ONLY sources mentioning anything about that in every single website have been from none other than Laurel Kornfeld and I do mean EVERY SINGLE ONE. She has commented and replied and is quoted and mentioned in every single article that mentions the IAU bylaws violations.

The Other Side of Pluto
International Astronomical Union: February A 'Dwarf Month' : The Intersection
FORA.tv - Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Pluto Files
Laurel's Pluto Blog - Pluto: "How Wrong They Were"
The IAU rules — Pluto not a planet anymore | Homo Logisticus Organizus
Happy Birthday, Pluto

Just some examples. ALL of them mentioning the bylaws have Laurel Kornfeld in common. I am not saying that this shows that her claims are not true, but they make them suspect, at the very least.

 

[Delphiki]

You act like it's the 2000 presidential election or something.

 

[AV1611VET]

You act like it's the 2000 presidential election or something.

I'm still waiting for Y2K to happen.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm still waiting for Y2K to happen.

It's 2012 next, then the rapture. Try and catch up, will you?

 

[Psudopod]

You read all that, and you don't think the vote was rigged?

Wow.

How about those who do think it was rigged, shrug their shoulders and say, "So what?"

No, I meant I'd missed it elsewhere. And there's Sandwiches post below yours to bear in mind.

As to people who say so what, it would depend what they were saying so what to: the moral or the scientific issue. And in terms of science, I'd have to agree. Which takes me back to my original point, that you still haven't addressed: in this case, it doesn't matter morality of the issue when talking about the science because science is not affected by the decision.

Do you agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which takes me back to my original point, that you still haven't addressed: in this case, it doesn't matter morality of the issue when talking about the science because science is not affected by the decision.

From my point-of-view -- that of a plebeian -- the [worldly] morality is neutral.

But I have to ask:

If you would have gone to vote, and found yourself locked out because you are a planetary astronomer, how moral would you think the voting issue was?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod

Which takes me back to my original point, that you still haven't addressed: in this case, it doesn't matter morality of the issue when talking about the science because science is not affected by the decision.
​

From my point-of-view -- that of a plebeian -- the [worldly] morality is neutral.

But I have to ask:

If you would have gone to vote, and found yourself locked out because you are a planetary astronomer, how moral would you think the vote is?

Please, just answer my question. If you want to discuss the morality of the decision, then we can go to ethics and morality and discuss it.

 

[Targ]

If it's true what Miss Laurel Kornfeld said, then it's pretty fishy. However, I also find fishy that there's no sources that indicate that what the decision was done by violating AIU bylaws. In fact, the ONLY sources mentioning anything about that in every single website have been from none other than Laurel Kornfeld and I do mean EVERY SINGLE ONE. She has commented and replied and is quoted and mentioned in every single article that mentions the IAU bylaws violations.

Just some examples. ALL of them mentioning the bylaws have Laurel Kornfeld in common. I am not saying that this shows that her claims are not true, but they make them suspect, at the very least.

Seems that she's been writing about Pluto every few days for the last four years - whew! Also she says this on her profile:

While I have a wide array of interests, this blog has somehow evolved into a site advocating the reinstatement of Pluto's planetary status, a cause dear to my heart.

Man, she really needs to get herself a boyfriend.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems that she's been writing about Pluto every few days for the last four years - whew!

Why is it, Targ, that when I rant about Pluto, I get, "But Pluto is still there", or "big deal"; yet, when I claim I'm not a Homo sapiens, people want further clarification?

 

[Naraoia]

Man, she really needs to get herself a boyfriend.

Careful what you wish for. She could get a boyfriend who joins her in her ardent advocacy

Meanwhile, Pluto and Charon waltz on along their long, cold orbit as they have done for aeons, oblivious of the petty concerns of earthly scientists...

 

[AV1611VET]

Careful what you wish for. She could get a boyfriend who joins her in her ardent advocacy

Meanwhile, Pluto and Charon waltz on along their long, cold orbit as they have done for aeons, oblivious of the petty concerns of earthly scientists...

Ya -- anyone who dares disagree with this rigged scientific vote is a candidate for ridicule, aren't they?

Wanting Pluto reinstated to full planetary status is 'ardent advocacy'; but getting together and deciding to lock the doors to one's colleagues and rigging a vote draws a 'meh, so what' from you guys; doesn't it?

 

[Cabal]

Ya -- anyone who dares disagree with this rigged scientific vote is a candidate for ridicule, aren't they?

No, anyone who thinks it makes any difference to actual SCIENCE is inviting it.

Wanting Pluto reinstated to full planetary status is 'ardent advocacy'

Oh come on - it's politer than implying that someone needs to get a girlfriend (speaking as someone who spends their entire life in the lab at the moment).

but getting together and deciding to lock the doors to one's colleagues and rigging a vote draws a 'meh, so what' from you guys; doesn't it?

It does when redrawing happens fairly often in science, and there is inevitably one subset that pines for the old system regardless of what arguments are made. Systems of standard units get changed, organic chemicals were systematically renamed during the early 20th century - happens a lot. If there was an issue regarding fudging the actual reviewing of the science itself and not what labels were put on it, there would be hell to pay.