Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the rocky-way-to-start-research dept.

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That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28.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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:50PM (2 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:50PM (#538804) Journal

    I'm aware that I'm using prejudiced reasoning, I'm not certain that he's going to doctor the evidence. But that's the way I'd bet.

    Glad you can at least admit that.

    Denying permission for any study in advance seems just a (wrong) way to enforce one's own prejudice, and every bit as wrong-headed as starting a study to prove one's own prejudice.

    And, the Park Service restricting access to to samples pretty much aids and abets that, doesn't it?

    After all if the next geologist looking at his data can not refute it, because the Park Service denies them, then the Park service plays directly into his hands, does it not? And had the Park Service maintained their denial, they play directly into the hands of the anti religious bigots.

    Also how much "data" does he get from 40 rocks? A few radio carbon dates? Composition analysis, magnetic orientations, collection site strata, etc., is pretty much all you get in Geology.

    All of these are perfectly repeatable. Provided there is access to samples. (His or in situ replicates).

    I personally doubt he would doctor the evidence.
    That would be too easy to refute (in a normal situation where samples can be acquired).

    But he may well reach unwarranted conclusions. Science is a process, not a thing. We need to Let it Work.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:53PM (#539095)

    As he's already said that it won't make any difference to him either way, there's little point in allowing him to take those rocks.

  • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday July 16 2017, @08:22PM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday July 16 2017, @08:22PM (#540005) Journal

    Denying permission for any study in advance seems just a (wrong) way to enforce one's own prejudice, and every bit as wrong-headed as starting a study to prove one's own prejudice.

    No, it doesn't. If you want to (e.g.) collect a few rocks to find evidence to support your thesis that Julius Caesar never personally visited the Grand Canyon, based on the premise of "I read this in a SoylentNews comment and was curious", then the value of your study is insufficient to warrant the intrusion it represents.

    Basically, the Park services seem to require that any project has a scientific approach, a scientific goal, and that will contribute to the advancement of science. That in no way rules out a project to support this particular individual's pet hypothesis. I'm not sure exactly what did rule it out, but the individual claiming "we already have sufficient and convincing proof of what I want to prove using these rocks" seems like a great way to get your project denied -- irrespective of what your project is about.

    That is something I wholeheartedly support. Either the Grand Canyon is a free-for-all where everyone can take rocks (fine too, for me), or it's more restricted. If rock-gathering is restricted to scientific endeavors, then the park services have a duty to check that any proposed endeavor is indeed scientific. This one wasn't, according to other scientists.

    Making exceptions just because someone's shouting "religious freedom" is silly and undermines the original restriction on rock-gathering.