The other day, I wrote about this unfortunate case of a cancer researcher at UC Davis who was abused by his university for criticizing another department’s poor health advice. I said that that’s one of the things you have to protect with academic freedom: the right of scientists to make informed criticisms of others’ work.
Now I’m getting squeaked at by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, who protests that I don’t give that same freedom to creationists.
So Myers doesn’t really believe in academic freedom — he only defends the freedom of scholars to agree with him. But without the liberty to dissent, the whole idea of “academic freedom” is pretty meaningless.
Scientists are supposed to use their intelligence, expertise, and knowledge to make evidence-based criticisms of claims. Since creationists lack all three characters, as well as having a dearth of evidence, it doesn’t apply. Academic freedom does not mean you are given carte blanche to make wild claims without an expectation that you’ll provide scientific reasoning behind them, and the thing is, in the UC Davis case, the cancer researcher was knowledgeable and discussed the best evidence.
There’s more to being an academic than having unfettered freedom, you know.
I know that and you know that but there is a good chance that Luskin doesn’t. He may even be unable, on some level, of ever knowing that.
“… the right of scientists to make informed criticisms of others’ work.”
So let them criticize the work of others. Then sit back as actual scientists rip them several new ones. I mean, if they are going to open themselves to thoughtful, reasoned and knowledgeable criticism…. (insert evil laugh here.)
When will the Discovery Institute teach the controversy about Unkulunkulu, the First Man of the Zulu? Why do they oppose freedom?
Curious, why is it that the creatard brigade is so eager to espouse their support for academic freedom when it comes to “questioning” evolution, but they diligently ignore the “academic” part entirely?
Just avoid the issue and replace tard with turd in the future.
There’s more to being an academic than having unfettered freedom, you know.
What is it with morons and insane notions of what constitutes “freedom?” Creotards like Luskin proclaim that their academic freedom is in jeopardy when they aren’t allowed to teach their bullshit. Libertarians claim we live under a Communist dictatorship if the rich can’t hoarde their wealth and treat their workers like shit. Dudebros complain that they are beseiged in prudes who want to take away their sexual freedom when its suggested that maybe they ought to treat women as something other than a Fleshlight.
For the last fucking time: “Freedom” is not a license to do evil and/or stupid things.
Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Discovery Institute spokesmouse Casey Luskin. I like it.
Actually, Behe enjoys full academic freedom.
Lehigh’s biology department has posted its disagreement with his fantasies, but no action to suppress them or him has ever been taken by the department or the university. Or by the almighty-powerful PZ.
So what’s Casey squeaking about?
You know, folks, I’ve never met a cognitively disabled person I disliked nearly so much as I dislike creationists. So could you quit it with the “tard” stuff?
Having academic freedom means you are free to criticize the work of other scientists but it also mean that they have the right to respond, and if your criticism is baseless tear you a new one. I’m sure none of us would have any objection if the conference organizers have responded to Wilkes’ objection by presenting their case as to why they think that it’s justified to promote the PSA test, rather then by trying to have him intimidated into silence. What the dishonesty institute want is to be able to criticize real scientist, without having to bother with all this evidence thingy, but have immunity from the scientists they criticize turning back and pointing out how full of poo they are.
Don’t overlook the fundamental truth that creationism is not science.
The creationists try to sound scientific, but when you come down to it, their stock in trade consists of two categories of remarks: those attacking evolution, Darwin, etc; and those that buttress creationism. (The stick and the carrot, you might say.)
The first category is based on ignorance and misunderstanding, both often fully wilful, plus a good dose of outright lying. The second category is a bunch of threadbare arguments based on nothing more than the religious opinion that the Abrahamic account of creation is The Truth. Never mind that other bodies of religious opinion offer quite different accounts of the beginning of all things.
But again: creationism is not science and therefore to permit creationists to pollute scientific discourse with their arrant nonsense would be like….well, like playing chess with pigeons.
Exactly. I believe in freedom, but only for those that agree with me that murder is a thing one is not free to do.
(BTW, you can just type ‘creationist’. The -tard ending is unnecessary and causes splash damage.)
But I still don’t understand why supposed Christians squeak about all this persecution. Being persecuted is a good thing, according to Jesus’ own words. Convenient that they’re not literalists when it comes to the New Testament.
WHAT-EVAAAH, I DO WHAT I WAAANT!
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!
There a are a few words in there on which Mr. Squeek just doesn’t quite have a good grasp.
The -tard ending is unnecessary and causes splash damage.
Sorry about that, my indignation got in the way of my empathy. It will not happen again.
@Ms. Daisy Cutter
WHAT-EVAAAH, I DO WHAT I WAAANT!
Nice, but I had Bender’s antics in the “Freedom Day” episode of Futurama in mind.
Here’s to hoping they spend a nice long day with the Pain Monster.
As perhaps a timely counter-example, note the harsh criticism of group selectionists — but that nobody is harassing them or hounding them out of the field. It’s important to protect the academic freedom to vigorously defend any reasonable ideas, even rather poor ones like group selection. But there comes a point…
Salvo unintentionally got it right: “All skeptics are equal (but some skeptics are more equal than others).”
Some “skeptics” are IDiotic science-haters seeking to overthrow science and its standards, while other skeptics make judicious use of standards and evidence to make critical judgments (not hateful judgments criticizing science like IDiots do).
Why even have colleges if you treat every ignorant apologist like Luskin the same as a learned and judicious thinker?
Shouting matches are all that the IDiots would allow to exist.
Glen Davidson
Casey seems to think that only he can criticize, but he can’t be criticized back.
Typical creationist slime.
The problem with creationists (and ALL anti-science cranks) is that they conflate evidence based criticism of their position as being . Why bother with evidence when becoming a martyr is easier and can make you look oh so noble?
These fools don’t want academic freedom at all, they want to teach their garbage unobstructed while being continually patted on the head and told what special snowflakes they are for going up against the academic poopyheads. What cranks truly want schools and universities to become is echo chambers for their drivel, nothing more. They can shove their insincere “academic freedom” whinging up their arse.
My irony meter just wrapped itself round the end stop when I noticed that Luskin’s article appears to have no comment area. I guess he is ok with readers having no freedom to disagree with his bloviations.
To the best of my knowledge neither PZ nor anyone else has tried to stop Casey Luskin and the Discovery Institute disseminating their “science”, we have simply reserved the right to rip it to shreds. Academic freedom doesn’t mean that if I disagree with you and have the facts to back up my disagreement that I am preventing you from speaking.
I think the insufferable worm Luskin is alluding to the case studies in the lie-ridden “Expelled.”
Yes, Casey, you and your group of charlatans can push whatever unscientific nonsense you want, wherever you want. When you do, real evidence and facts will squash it like the cockroach that it (creationism) is.
A valid theory can go out in all weathers and defend itself against the fiercest of attacks.
Creationism is a sad wilting little house plant that needs the babble held protectively over it, in case the slightest incursion rattles its leaves.
Casey Luskin, who only speaks the truth when he says “Ow!”, wants the freedom to tell us that the pathetic creationism plant is in fact Yggdrasil, mighty supporter of all knowledge. He also wants “goddidit” to suffice for any why questions. What a goal for academic freedom, Mr Luskin.
Your metaphor is doubly ironic as Casey Luskin and his allies intend to fertilize the pathetic plant of creationism with the scorched ashes of Science.
Can Luskin really be this clueless as to the meaning of the word “academic”?
True, that. To borrow a famous metaphor, expecting science to yield up support for his creationist views is like expecting a windmill to keel over when attacked. But he has high hopes.
CL deserves the Reid Fleming response, at best.
The Disco Tute really is a group of the most worthless, laughingly dishonest, impotently hysterical little weenies ever assembled, even in this Golden Age of “conservative” “we-blow-the-chihuahuas-of-the-wealthy-for-a-nickel-and-give-change-because-we-are-honored-to-do-so!” thought tanks.
The two drunk ladies need to visit Casey again to stroke his little ego.
I have a lot of fun* by reverting the meaning of each positive or negative verb the creashunists speak or write. This still results in strange constructions, but it’s closer to the actual meaning of the ideas they obviously meant to express.
So, for example, in the quote above, if we follow these rules for speaking or quoting :
So Myers does really believe in academic freedom — he only defends the freedom of scholars to disagree with him. But with the liberty to dissent, the whole idea of “academic freedom” is pretty meaningful.
Hey, if it’s good enough for their spokesmouse, its good enough for me. Try it – it works with nearly every christian sentence heard in the news or read in their (shudder) books.
*OK, not that much fun, but if they can play with double meanings, why can’t we?
So you’ll all be rooting for the reinstatement of James E. Enstrom, then, I hope?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-kissel/james-e-enstrom-ucla-science_b_1596999.html
jonjeremy –
Why don’t you provide a link to an article that IS NOT written by a Heartland Institute shill?