SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Remember when we discussed Rocks Request Rejection issue back in May? The discussion was nothing if not spirited.
Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end.
...
The National Park Service sent Snelling's proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. Snelling didn't get his permit. Snelling sued.
Well It turns out the guy gets to harvest his bag-o-rocks because the the National Park Service has decided its easier to give a few rocks than take the religious flack.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.
Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:49PM (28 children)
What crappy school did this guy get his PhD from? They really should revoke it: you can't be a real scientist if you start out with an answer and then selectively interpret evidence to support the answer which you're already convinced of.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:01PM
OK. Let's revoke the citizenship of terrorists. You're a terrorist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:06PM (7 children)
The PhD just means that he's capable of thought and reason. It doesn't mean he needs to actually be thoughtful or reasonable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:12PM (3 children)
PhD means he has done original research. It doesn't mean what he's doing at the moment qualifies as scientific.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)
Yes, but the degree basically means the school is vouching for him in the degree field (in this case, the science of geology) and claiming him to be competent in that field. He clearly is not.
Obviously, my idea opens a big bag of worms and really isn't workable: should colleges monitor graduates for decades to make sure they aren't going off the rails? Should a medical school revoke the degree of a doctor who turns into an alternative-medicine-practicing quack? But I would like to point out that in actual professional associations, they absolutely will revoke your license if you prove yourself incompetent. Lawyers who do really rotten things to abuse their position are disbarred and unable to practice law. Doctors who commit malpractice can lost their license.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)
Sure, why not? They could offer a small tuition rebate or gift card for school clothing yearly to anyone who joins the alumni association and keeps their information up-to-date.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:26PM
In the UK, we have the General Medical Council who license medical doctors to practice. This is effectively what you are talking about. No such provision exists for non-medical doctors
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:57PM
I thought the PhD just meant that he managed to please his defense committee sufficiently to get them to sign off. There are many ways to please a review committee, and I've met more than one PhD who seemed to get their degree awarded as a way for the committee to get the individual out of the institution where they won't be bothered by them anymore.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:25PM
Are you sure about that?
Have you seen those morons from the Batteriser debacle, for instance? Those guys are PhDs....
Though, I suppose, maybe they do actually know what they're doing, yet just trying to pull a snowjob on everyone else, but I'm not so sure they're always even as capable of thought and reason as you may suspect...
:facepalm:
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:26PM
thought and reason at one moment in time. Not sure, it counts when you are not actively using it....
No point revoking a PhD - the "appeal to authority" is of no use in science, even though there are some egotistical charlatans using it that way to make a crust...
Don't get me start on the DO's....complete bollocks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:14PM (7 children)
>"... you can't be a real scientist if you start out with an answer and then selectively interpret evidence to support the answer which you're already convinced of."
A real scientist can start out with an answer and objectively interpret evidence in order to judge whether or not it is correct. How do you know whether he is going to be selective or objective? The real question is how does the park service decide who is allowed to collect samples. Do they have a limit on how much is collected per year? If so, do the applications exceed that limit? Are they denying Snelling priority, or are they trying to quash the propagation of his beliefs?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:31PM (3 children)
Removing anything at all from the Grand Canyon is generally prohibited. Having every tourist grab a souvenir would strip very scientifically valuable material from the site. Taking any samples for research is very restricted. A few scientists per year are allowed to take small samples for qualified projects. Initially the idea of letting some crackpot young-earth nut to try to prove his ridiculous, totally discredit hypothesis was not granted for obvious reasons. But then here come the Bible-thumpers, and they raised such a fuss that the Park Service relented.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:35AM (2 children)
I wonder if I could get a bag of souvenirs if I say I'm looking for evidence of the FSM.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:16PM (1 child)
If you can get sufficient public support, probably.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:44PM
I kind of wonder whether those exact same 3 peer reviewer scientists would support him.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:46PM (1 child)
What about "Answers in Genesis" do you not understand?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:28AM
Why Phil Collins, SEGA, and Hyundai haven't sued yet.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:17AM
They send out proposals for peer review. From the fine article:
Moreover, also from the fine article:
So he himself does not think that these rocks would be scientifically interesting - they can only substantiate a thesis that he believes already has sufficient evidence, but not refute it.
So basically, he thinks his rock collection is not of any scientific value. That's a point the reviewers and he agree upon.
(Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:24PM (5 children)
It's from the University of Sydney. I don't think they even have schools in Australia, so this is probably fake.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:40PM (3 children)
Geology is critical in Australia: You learn to recognize under which type of rock each deadly creature is most likely to hide to ambush you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)
Drop bears hide under rocks too?!
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM
They know you're likely looking up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:59PM
And figure out why all the rocks are up in trees.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:08AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyVX3uJpqxc [youtube.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:01AM (2 children)
> you can't be a real scientist if you start out with an answer and then selectively interpret evidence to support the answer which you're already convinced of
Yeah but if you start out with a theory you are already convinced of, and interpret evidence to support it, I see no problem. If you see problems with that then go to those guys who interpret the cosmic background radiation as such after it has shown anisotropies and statistical alignment with the earth's ecliptic [wikipedia.org], or go to those guys who are fixing the big bang theory.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
Add to that that Geology seems to be a pretty hidebound discipline where big names prevail and new ideas are seldom welcomed gracefully.
The Columbia River Gorge was also thought to be a multi-hundred-million year erosion artifact by the big names in Geology. Then this guy (who was working as a school teacher at the time) came along, and (after going off and earning his PHD) turned THAT Theory on its head [wikipedia.org].
A rather readable article on that appears here in Nat Geo. [nationalgeographic.com]
Could something similar have happened in the Grand Canyon? Current Geological theory says flat out NO
WAY, and certainly not by somebody who starts from a religious point of view. Anyone raising such a theory is going to be met with derision. And if he has a skeleton in his closet, be it race or religion or something else THAT will be the tip of the spear used to attack him.
40 samples seem to a cheap price to put that theory to rest, or give it a fair hearing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:16PM
Except it won't put it to rest. Even Snelling has admitted that even if the samples don't show what he thinks they will, it won't change his beliefs in a young earth or global flood.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:38AM
However, that's all of the politically polarized social sciences, economics, theoretical physics, some fuzzier theoretical corners of math...
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday July 14 2017, @12:56PM
FWIW, he appeared to be doing actual science to get his PhD, but apparently found there was more money to be made in the religious "science" field. They should have asked him which rocks he wanted then delivered them to him...through every pane of glass in his house.