The problem with having eyes and ears everywhere is that sometimes they deliver sensory data that make you want to rip them out of your head or stuff them with cotton, respectively.
An eagle-eyed reader pointed me toward some eyebrow-raising comments on another blog, which would not be of much interest except they purport to transmit information obtained from one of the fine science departments at my university. So, to uphold the honor of my university, I have to wade into this.
First, a representative sampling of the comments from the poster in question. He writes:
I will leave this site with a comment a chemistry professor made. It is simple but for this site it will speak volumes. Can 2 parrots mate and have a crow.
This is the premise of evolution, like it or not. This is it.
When other commenters question why a chemistry professor should be taken as an authority on evolutionary theory, he writes:
Chemists supercede biologists in science in general. Physicists supersede them both.
And:
When you see the element tables in class did you think that biologists came up with those? Did you think biologists understand most of those? Those tables are made by higher scientists. A biologist cannot dispute what they say because they are a lower level of science. Ask your teacher about this. In fact, look it up online. See how the pecking order works. Any of you look it up and then tell me if I should take you seriously.
In answer to some posters’ efforts to challenge his claims about certain theoretical matters and about the hierarchy of scientific fields, he opines:
You give vague ideas. That’s because you are just beginning or you don’t go to a good school. I go to school in the silicon valley. We are science. Remember that.
And, for good measure, he throws in:
My goal is to master science once I mastered politics. I am now where near my goal but I am only 2 years away. When I do this I will challenge that cripple steve Hawking and embarass him. That guy is over rated. Read his stuff. He is purely science fiction.
Sweet Tesla on an induction motor! Where do we start with this?
Would a chemistry professor have said that the premise of evolution is that two parrots can mate and have a crow?
It strikes me as extremely unlikely. Certainly, it is not the kind of conclusion a chemist (or anyone else) would come to through a careful study of evolutionary theory.
It is possible that a chemistry professor could have uttered words to this effect? I suppose so (although I would want to check his or her tone for sarcasm). Yet another possibility is that the poster’s reconstruction of whatever his chemistry professor actually said here is not quite on. Believe me, I’ve graded enough papers and exams to know that students sometimes misunderstand what their teachers are trying to teach them. This is part of why we grade papers and exams in the first place, to point out these misunderstandings.
Should we care whether a chemistry professor said that the premise of evolution is that two parrots can mate and have a crow?
If we’re passing judgment on that chemistry professor’s understanding of evolutionary theory (or on his ability to come up with apt analogies to explain scientific claims), this (alleged) remark is relevant. If we’re looking for authoritative information about the theory of evolution, finding a biology professor, especially one who does research on some aspect of evolutionary biology, seems like it would be a better bet. For one thing, a biologist is more likely to have studied aspects of evolutionary biology in some detail. For another, a biologist is more likely to be up on the current research literature concerning evolutionary biology. It’s a specialization thing. It helps ensure that one’s graduate training lasts less than 100 years.
Is chemistry a more science-y science than biology? Do chemists outrank biologists?
Different scientific fields use different theoretical frameworks and different observational and experimental approaches to study different phenomena. There are some overlaps, where adjoining fields may talk about the same entities or may share modeling techniques or experimental techniques, but the questions biologists are trying to answer are generally distinct from the questions chemists are trying to answer, and those are generally distinct from the questions physicists are trying to answer. Even if we postulate a hierarchy of matter and laws (with physics dealing with the smallest stuff and biologists dealing with much bigger stuff), that doesn’t mean that chemistry is sloppy physics, nor biology sloppy chemistry.
The physicists don’t supervise the chemists and biologists. In the real world of working scientists, things just are not that way — nor would scientists in any of those subfields want them to be. (Physics just isn’t the right tool for the job of answering biological questions.)
Does everyone who goes to a school in the Silicon Valley have an awesome mastery of Science?
This isn’t Lake Woebegone. I would put our best science majors right up there with the best science majors from elite research universities. But, as anywhere, some of the people studying the sciences here are better students and others are worse. And, Silicon Valley or not, we have our share of students who studiously avoid taking science classes. There’s nothing magical about this region with regard to its effects on the study-skills and academic choices of our students.
Does calling Stephen Hawking “that cripple” show a lot of class?
You tell me.
Where do we start with this?
Laugh, and walk away. Anything else is a waste of time (which is not to say that I didn’t enjoy your post, so I guess there’s always the entertainment angle). But this buffoon is going to provide his own refutation everywhere he goes; there’s no danger of him poisoning the discourse, as some of the more sophisticated ID proponents might if left unchecked.
All us physics people think it’s very nice to see this yutz handing us a licence to pound him with a clue-by-four.
I am inspired to offer a prediction: He will master science exactly as much as he mastered politics.
Hi professor Stemwedel.
I believe you left out the part where said poster declared that evolution required that in order for a human on a mountaintop to acquire food from another mountaintop, said human would have to grow wings.
& I wish I was joking about that. I really do.
I suspect this student poster might just be a troll…
I have had the ‘pleasure’ of conversing with this same brat. He’s rude, offensive, fairly ignorant, and generally unpleasant. I appreciate your efforts to put the record straight. Fortunately very few people give his opinion any credence, and unfortunately he will not broker any correction or criticism.
But well done for putting the record straight.
Believe me you don’t want this guy hitting your blog. He hijacked several of our threads and his content is as vaccuous as ID (if that is possible). He is everything that a troll wishes he could be and more. If he turns up pay him no attention, this seems to help greatly.
Do biologists at least get to boss around geologists and computer scientists?
This idea that physics “outranks” or is somehow better than other sciences irritates me greatly, and I run into it all over the place. I’m especially annoyed when people declare things like psychology unscientific, and argue that physics is scientific, because its a “hard” science. I wish these people could sit in at some of the group meetings here, and see just how (and in what sense) it is “hard”. Anyone who says things like these pretty much exposes themselves as someone who doesn’t know much about specific areas of science.
I would like to quibble with one statement you make though, Janet. You say that physics isn’t the right tool to use in biology; this isn’t true in a couple of senses. Physics isn’t a tool, it’s a huge batch of very different tools. I remember a couple of the Friday lectures in the physics department that had biologists giving talks, and they were of course chosen because of their use of physics. Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics alone comprise powerful tools that just about anyone in any science can make great use of.
And of course, physics borrows lots of tools from everyone else. Physics has relied heavily on chemistry for many (maybe most?) of its advances. It was work by chemists that provided us with the tools we needed to derive much of how quantum mechanics applies to atoms and molecules, and quantum chemistry is a marriage that shares responsibility in a way even modern marriages can only hope to achieve. I would even argue that physics has much to learn from biology, though severe reductionist philosophy present in physics has impeded this.
Like any good neighbors, physics, chemistry and biology (and many others) borrow and share each other’s tools. Unlike even the best neighbors, we typically return them in better condition than when we got them.
Kyle,
Yes, I was speaking broadly when I called physics a tool rather than a whole box of diverse tools. But I think it’s fair to say that the general sort of question biologists ask doesn’t line up neatly with the general sort of question physicists answer — and vice versa. Dealing with different sorts of phenomona, you develop a different sense of what the most productive questions are.
One more bit on the cross-disciplinary tool-borrowing: while the neighbors may bring back your tool in great condition, it’s also common that some of the ways they use your tools might make you pull out your hair if you saw them.
And about the same as he masters English grammar.
Sorry, but someone had to do it.
Bob
I read that post and to tell you the truth it frightens me that she has a PhD in any form of science. I guess she should have paid attention in biology or to what she babbles herself. Everything is made up of the same building blocks. The more you understand the smaller things, the more you understand the bigger things. Does this make sense? Here is an example.
I know it is not reliable as the information she gives but here you go. It comes from a government website.
“What is the world made of?
The building blocks
Physicists have identified 12 building blocks that are the fundamental constituents of matter. Our everyday world is made of just three of these building blocks: the up quark, the down quark and the electron. This set of particles is all that’s needed to make protons and neutrons and to form atoms and molecules. The electron neutrino, observed in the decay of other particles, completes the first set of four building blocks.
The building blocks of matter: six quarks and six leptons.
For some reason nature has elected to replicate this first generation of quarks and leptons to produce a total of six quarks and six leptons, with increasing mass. Like all quarks, the sixth quark, named top, is much smaller than a proton (in fact, no one knows how small quarks are), but the top is as heavy as a gold atom!
Although there are reasons to believe that there are no more sets of quarks and leptons, theorists speculate that there may be other types of building blocks, which may partly account for the dark matter implied by astrophysical observations. This poorly understood matter exerts gravitational forces and manipulates galaxies. It will take earth-based accelerator experiments to identify its fabric.”
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/madeof/index.html
To emphasize my point, the more you know about the smaller things in life, the more you know about the bigger things in life. This is important when I make my point in regards to evolution. I say this because if this lady knew about biology as much as she thinks she does, she would know that our genetic make up is what separates us from other living things. True story, or so that is what evolutionists would like you to believe. If you change a persons DNA by altering the amino acids, the bases, the nucleotides, etc, people could evolve into lizards. How does this happen? Women could potentially give birth to lizards and the human species would be extinct. I don’t believe this but you people do. What does this mean? That means that everything came from the same super cell and from there every species evolved from this complicated process. Could it have happened? No. The makeup of living things is far more complicated than that to allow such a thing to occur. Now ask me, how much faith can I have in an assistant philosophy instructor that has problems putting together comments that don’t pass a standard spell and grammar check? Not much. Seeing how she is a philosophy teacher however, she must have an understanding of what people think, right? I would think so, but in her case the answer is a resounding no. You see she states that people who learn science somehow morph into an agnostic if they retain their faith. How can this be when I work at a hospital where nurses and doctors are Christian? How can this be when one of my family members has a PhD in physics and is Christian? Is he playing a cruel trick on my family to be accepted? No, I don’t think so. If she understood people or knew much about historical figures, she would have known that Darwin did not lose his faith when he learned too much science, he lost his faith when his daughter died of tuberculosis.
As a San Jose state student, I am not impressed by you. In fact I am disappointed that they have someone like you assisting a class. How much can you offer your students that seek help when you don’t have a clue yourself? The truth is in this life you like me are not important. Why does your opinion matter? It doesn’t, you’re not even a teacher. I have real debates with legitimate teachers. As for the posters you endorse and therefore support their credibility, how do you explain the following statements?
Small and large matter react the same.
Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution.
Electrons furthest away from the nucleus always have the most energy.
Blood does not go through the pulmonary trunk, veins, or arteries.
The coronary sinus does not exist.
The atrioventricular valve between the right atrium and the right ventricle is the bicuspid.
The heart does not have a conduction system.
These comments were made by the Blogs genius.
Here are some others.
Fascism is communism.
Communism is totalitarianism.
The First amendment allows for unrestricted freedom of speech.
Slavery is not mentioned in the constitution.
God is not referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Hobbes supported atheism.
Karl Marx was Russian.
Marx created the socialist concept.
The only function of congress is to make laws.
The president has no say in the making of laws.
The senate does not have the power of oversight.
Initiatives and referendums don’t exist.
Fascism supports religion.
Jesus Christ is a myth.
The earliest writing of Jesus came hundreds of years after his death.
Allah is not the same God Christians or Jews believe in.
Fascism was not started in Italy.
John Quincy Adams was the second and the sixth president of the United States.
Voltaire was an atheist.
Marquis de Sade was not a sadist.
San Jose State and Santa Clara University are some of the worst schools in the nation.
Catholic/Christian schools do not teach science.
The list goes on and on. I can only assume that when you grade papers, you do not grade them correctly. I am under the forced assumptions that this is lady is the most intelligent atheist on the planet. I am not impressed.
On the one hand, I feel this is undoubtedly true. On the other, I can’t think of any examples. If you have any I’d love to hear them.
And thanks for keeping up such an interesting blog.
Kyle, thank you for agreeing with me that hard sciences are not as hard as some people think. I often ponder why people who believe in evolution do not question things like abiogenesis or the similarities between a human embryo and a fish embryo. There are hundreds of examples like this. It seems to me that science is trying to suppress alternative theories by coercion rather than developing current theories. I would argue that science itself is becoming if not already an atheistic church. I do not have a problem with this as long as they do not deceive their followers. By this I mean that science has a right to teach things like evolution but they need to show their followers the flaws in it and explain to them that faith is needed to believe such things. I mentioned in the previous post that small matter and large matter behave differently because someone had argued that they behave the same. My point is that science is not doing enough to teach the masses science. They only show the majority of the people tidbits of science. This makes its believers ignorant. Many people who believe in a higher power can quote scriptures, how many believers of science can explain the basic structure of DNA? What I ask of all atheists and people who blindly believe in science to do is to find out what the flaws are before they give it their absolute faith. Does that make sense?
Javier,
Lay. Off. The. Red. Bull.
Things will become coherent again. Seriously.
Hand judging by your writing skills I seriously doubt you know what the word coherent means. If you are going to write something as poorly as you did, why do you even bother to punctuate? The way some people think, you, boggles the mind. I bet you drove you English teacher crazy.
Javier, perhaps you have not spent much time reading the posts of others online, or you might already be familiar with what Language Log describes as
Do read the linked post; it’s quite interesting and informative.
Also, while I’m here: An assistant professor, in the U.S. system of academic rank, does not assist in teaching classes; that’s what teaching assistants are for. (The things one might learn by attending class!)
Janet,
Sorry, there is no excuse to butcher the English language. I do it myself at times when I am not paying attention because I am rushing through a comment. I don’t care who tries to alter what. The point is English is English. In ten years they may modify it again to fit the Myspace generation. I don’t care. Just because the word ain’t is in the English dictionary doesn’t mean it’s correct. I am also perplexed by your rationale. Whether you are a teacher’s aide, a substitute, or whatever you might be, I don’t care. It wouldn’t matter if you were the head of a division. What I am going to tell you, I have told counselors and deans at other learning institutions. Schools are businesses. I am a consumer. Schools are no different than a used car dealership. I go to school for a service, not a diploma. For this reason I am surprised by your condescending tone. You speak to me as if I were one of you students or I somehow depend on something you give me. You neither give me nor offer me anything. The only thing I receive from San Jose state is the education I pay for. In reality, there is a good chance I have a higher social standing than you in this country because I come from a wealthy family. In this capitalist country money is what matters not a degree in a flimsy subject like philosophy. So please show some class when you speak to people it will do a lot for you appearance. Right now, you look no better than me. I will no longer post on your site if you don’t want me to but I suggest if you want people to respect you, you should refrain from making insults. If you read my original posts at the other site, I did not lose my tact until I read several discriminatory remarks about Christians as well as personal insults to me.
Thank you for your time,
Your peer
Javier
God Bless America
VIVA BUSH
Once again the brilliant nineteen-year-old saves the day by telling us what is what. Javier, shut up and open your eyes and ears for a while. It will be disconcerting, but it’s the only way you will actually acquire any wisdom in this world. For one concerned with the class people show when they speak to others, you are a hell of a piece of work.