Paradigms

I wonder what our readers think of this from today’s New York Times:

>KINGSTON, R.I. — There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

>His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

>But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

>For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

>He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?”

26 thoughts on “Paradigms”

  1. That has to be one of the boldest corruptions of Kuhn’s view that I have ever seen! Of course, he has just admitted that he wrote and defended his dissertation in bad faith—he didn’t believe his conclusions were true. However, if Dr. Ross is a scientfic anti-realist this may not be much of problem. I know that some philosophers routinely argue and defend views they do not believe are true.

    Howwever, young earth creation is not a scientific theory, which is probably the reason Dr. Ross did not use it in his dissertation. So when he uses the word “paradigm” he must be refering to something other than scientific paradigms. But, his last comparsion, using a socialist in an economics department, strongly hints that he believes that young earth creationism is a scientific theory, since socialsim is a real economic theory. If that is the case, then hopefully his dissertation committee pressed him on this point during his defense.

    It will be interesting to see if Dr. Ross gets any papers published in peer-reviewed journals using the other “paradigm.”

  2. I don’t suspect that he will. There is a problem I think with the socialist/supply-side analogy. Socialism and supply side economics are views about what sort of economy works best or what the goal of an economic system is. They are not descriptive theories about whether there are economic relationships. This I think supports your contention that he views them as competing scientific paradigms. It’s hard to reconcile the meaning of the word “literal” about the religious text. I think it’s an abuse of the word “opinion” (which is not unusual by the way) to claim that the difference between young earth creationism and scientific practice amounts to a diversity of opinion.

  3. I read about this earlier at Pharyngula. It seems not that he was working in a different paradigm, he was lying plain and simple. He\’s using his degree to try, unsuccessfully, to bring some semblance of credibility to Liberty University, which we now know is built on lies. Of greater concern is the dissertation board at RI.

    **Editor\’s note: wordpress is making it difficult to use that link.

  4. It seems to me, if nothing else, that Dr. Ross was inconsistent in a couple of areas. I view his behavior as inconsistent with the intent of the Doctoral program and, presupposing that Dr. Ross is a Christian, inconsistent with the intent of some of the moral teachings of scripture. I do see it as consistent with a Machiavellian philosophy. But I view a Machiavellian philosophy as inconsistent with what I understand Christianity to be.
    With this in mind, I assert that this puts his credibility in either sphere in jeopardy.
    What is the benefit to a young earth creationist to spend so much time and effort to get a doctorate in something that is inconsistent with ones beliefs? It seems to me that a benefit, whether intentional or not, is that one can go to work for the creation science institute as a PHD in a related field and therefore be considered an expert in that field. In this situation, one could at least earn a living. I understand that recently the creation science institute has come up short one PHD since he was sent to the ‘Big House’.

  5. Nevyn\’s and Pharyngula\’s accusations raise some an interesting point: in light of the fact that he rejects the soundly produced scientific work as soundly produced scientific work, should he have his soundly produced scientific work rejected?

    Here\’s the link again to the Pharyngula piece–

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

    **note again. WordPress won\’t link properly to this site. Perhaps because it\’s Php. Jeremy?

  6. short answer:
    I wouldn’t reject his work unless it was not up to standards for a PHD. But then I’m just a normal guy with a B.S.
    Long answer:
    I would like to throw the ‘illegal procedure flag’ on this statement
    “I think the University of Rhode Island might want to review their doctoral programs a bit. It looks like someone can slip through with only the most superficial knowledge of their field, and can admit to faking it throughout their entire training. This kind of slack in the standards diminishes the luster of degrees from RI.”
    I don’t agree with that because it seems to be a hasty generalization. I don’t remember Mr. Meyers saying he read the paper, and if he did he didn’t mention anything wrong with it specifically. I don’t see how not believing in what you are doing would nullify your work. And I don’t see how Dr. Ross diminishes the luster of degrees from RI. If he did the work, and it was assessed as being PHD quality, then he should get it. If the paper turns out to be inadequate, then there would be a problem. If Dr. Ross had not said anything, then I predict that nothing would have changed.
    I’d like to throw the flag on this statement as well
    “It also says something even worse of Liberty University. They’ll hire any old hack to teach their courses.”
    because it seems to me to be a hasty generalization, a straw man, or ad hominem against the university (i don’t know what the name for that would be). They have hired someone that has only demonstrated that they are capable of a large amount of sacrifice for something that is inconsistent with their beliefs. I think that only says that no-one really knows where Dr. Ross stands. It could be that he is working to undermine Liberty University, or that he needs a job or it could be exactly what Mr. Meyers thinks it is.

  7. Dear Lee,

    I wouldn’t say that comment is a hasty generalization. It seems to be just false. He has more than a superficial knowledge of his material. And he has demonstrated that. The question rather is another one. Whether he has to swear that he thinks what he writes is true. It’s certainly an unusual circumstance. And I can’t imagine that making him swear he believes his conclusions matters. Not because the question doesn’t matter, it’s just hard to imagine that it would add anything to what he’s written. What he’s written, in other words, if done properly, does not rely on his personal authentication. It stands alone on the evidence. That’s the beauty of science.

  8. i think i have to agree with Matt K–i don’t see how this isn’t a case of Dr. Ross dealing with his committee, his institution and his students at the time in bad faith. we might hold a point of argument we don’t believe for the sake of the argument, but i don’t think we would carry it to the extent of making it the foundation piece to our academic careers. he has usurped his credentials, which he can now use to pretend RI sanctions the kind of work he will be doing going forward. i think its pretty bush league, actually.

  9. There’s somewhat of an irony here, as a man who seemingly has “done what he needed to do” to get to a certain position (read: survive) in his field, is now being roundly repremanded by a scholarly community in which the predominant paradigm of nature itself (including human nature, remember) is that this “doing what works” is precisely how the world operates; how nature progresses.

    They should actually be applauding him for being such a thorough instantiation of their ethically vacuous metaphysical presupposition.

    Personally, he could think the world was five years old for all I care. Rather, what’s way more fascinating to me is those, take Nevyn for instance, who cannot even make their moral objection intelligible in light of their metaphysics, yet are all aghast and offended at this guy’s behavoir.

  10. Interesting point, but It seems your suggesting that evolution (doing what works) somehow rules out a coherent basis for moral claims. That’s a claim that’s highly controversial, to say the least. Besides, might you not also be conflating the naturalistic explanatory model of paleontology with a similarly naturalistic morality–which no one has asserted and doesn’t obviously follow.

  11. On your first point, that –
    “that’s a claim that’s highly controversial, to say the least.”
    – I disagree. I don’t think it’s controversial at all, at least in the sense that I think you’re suggesting. If by controversial you mean that the jury’s still out on whether it’s true or not, I disagree. But if by controversial you mean merely that it’s obviously true and yet no one wants to acknowledge it because of its implications, then yes, I agree with that sense of controversial. Sin is very controversial. It’s rebellion against God. That’s hugely controverial. It’s scandalous.

    On your second point, that –
    “might you not also be conflating…”
    – I don’t think that I am, although I see why you would ask that. Wait, you know, on second thought, can you enlarge on that? I don’t wanna misunderstand. I’m not sure how you will, since I take “naturalistic morality” to be a contradiction in terms, but I should at least ask you to before responding, cause I don’t quite see what you mean on this second point.

  12. The fact of evolution–let’s say just say it is for the sake of argument–does not rule out a coherent basis for moral claims. It doesn’t obviously rule out, say, hedonistic utilitarianism or Aristotelian virtue theory (to name two famous ones). But perhaps on your view these have no basis. If that’s the case, then no argument here about evolution will be of interest to you.

    On the second point, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who claims evolution is true as an explanatory model in biology is committed to some kind of reductive materialism. That just isn’t the case.

  13. “The fact of evolution–let’s say just say it is for the sake of argument–does not rule out a coherent basis for moral claims. ”

    Sure it does. Why should one be ethical?

    Further, the “fact” of evolution, implicitly supposes that irrational nature is prior to rational mind; that rationality is a late-comer to the game, by way of irrational accidents… an idea that seems very detrimental to the force of any argument whatsoever.

    Besides, if you’re going to suppose that the step from irrationality to rationality is merely one of some sort of degree, then you may have to rethink this whole site.

    You could call it: “It sorta follows kinda depending on how evolved you are”.

    I don’t know what the latin is for that.

    It doesn’t obviously rule out, say, hedonistic utilitarianism or Aristotelian virtue theory (to name two famous ones).

  14. “The fact of evolution–let’s say just say it is for the sake of argument–does not rule out a coherent basis for moral claims. ”

    Sure it does. Why should one be ethical?

    Further, the “fact” of evolution, implicitly supposes that irrational nature is prior to rational mind; that rationality is a late-comer to the game, by way of irrational accidents… an idea that seems very detrimental to the force of any argument whatsoever.

    Besides, if you’re going to suppose that the step from irrationality to rationality is merely one of some sort of degree, then you may have to rethink this whole site.

    You could call it: “It sorta follows kinda depending on how evolved you are”.

    I don’t know what the latin is for that, but it’s not nearly as catchy… or valid.

  15. Whatever it means to be the basis for moral claims–if there even is any such thing as a moral claim–is as obviously ruled out by evolution as it is established by God’s existence (cf. Euthyphro); evolution no more makes the question of living together as humans any less relevant that the existence of God solves any questions about what it means to be moral–is it doing the right thing? Wanting to do the right thing? How do I know what the right thing is? Is there a right thing? Can my duties conflict? What’s the source of their authority? What motivates me to do this? And so on.

    And don’t bother committing the genetic fallacy with regard to the origin of reason (and supposing that rationality arises from, as you put it, “irrationality” rather than non-rationality–whatever on earth that means). The non rational origin of reason–matter for instance–doesn’t make it any less rational any more than the non-orange flavored origin of oranges makes them less orangey.

    Further If you have an interest in the particular topic of this post, then please focus your comments and thoughts on that.

  16. The reality of God is the precondition upon which any moral claim is intelligible. The myriad moral questions you cited are important questions, but they don’t address the prior point, preconditions.

    If we’re going to say that it is “immoral” that Dr. Ross did his PhD work within the assumptions of one paradigm when in fact he felt another to be true, then we must make clear what view of reality in general would have to first be in place before it is even intelligble to call something “immoral” or not.

    I have not asserted that acknowledging God’s existence immediately answers the many moral questions you cited, nor the one in question in this post. Rather, I’m saying that God’s existence is the precondition upon which this discussion would even be intelligible.

    There are not moral and immoral actions in a metaphysics of accidents. I think that in light of this, it’s relavent to the post.

    And in light of that, as I stated, I round it ironic that some who hold such a metaphysics of accidents (and yet constantly appeal to necessity) wanted to chime in about the morality or immorality or Dr. Ross’s maneuvers.

    Folly speaks!!

  17. The reality of God is the precondition upon which any moral claim is intelligible. The myriad moral questions you cited are important questions, but they don’t address the prior point, preconditions.

    If we’re going to say that it is “immoral” that Dr. Ross did his PhD work within the assumptions of one paradigm when in fact he felt another to be true, then we must make clear what view of reality in general would have to first be in place before it is even intelligble to call something “immoral” or not.

    I have not asserted that acknowledging God’s existence immediately answers the many moral questions you cited, nor the one in question in this post. Rather, I’m saying that God’s existence is the precondition upon which this discussion would even be intelligible.

    There are not moral and immoral actions in a metaphysics of accidents. I think that in light of this, it’s relavent to the post.

    And in light of that, as I stated, I round it ironic that some who hold such a metaphysics of accidents (and yet constantly turn around and appeal to necessary laws) wanted to chime in about the morality or immorality or Dr. Ross’s maneuvers.

    Folly speaks!!
    -Erasmus

    First time caller, long time listener. Love your show.
    See you in class.

  18. The reality of God is the precondition upon which any moral claim is intelligible. The myriad moral questions you cited are important questions, but they don’t address the prior point, preconditions.

    If we’re going to say that it is “immoral” that Dr. Ross did his PhD work within the assumptions of one paradigm when in fact he felt another to be true, then we must make clear what view of reality in general would have to first be in place before it is even intelligble to call something “immoral” or not.

    I have not asserted that acknowledging God’s existence immediately answers the many moral questions you cited, nor the one in question in this post. Rather, I’m saying that God’s existence is the precondition upon which this discussion would even be intelligible.

    There are not moral and immoral actions in a metaphysics of accidents. I think that in light of this, it’s relavent to the post.

    And in light of that, as I stated, I round it ironic that some who hold such a metaphysics of accidents (and yet constantly appeal to necessity) wanted to chime in about the morality or immorality or Dr. Ross’s maneuvers.

    Folly speaks! -erasmus

    See you tomorrow.

  19. As I think I’ve made clear to any reasonable reader, you have made decisive assumptions about the nature of moral judgments. And again, God’s existence taken as some kind of precondition doesn’t resolve any questions either. It just pushes them back a step. And we’re back to where we started from. The moral accusation made above regarded specific comments by Dr. Ross that he didn’t believe the stuff he wrote in his dissertation. For the moment let’s say that’s true. That would make him dishonest. No one needs a comprehensive metaphysics in order to make that judgment. Asking for one is either missing the point of the nature of such moral judgments or, as seems more likely to be the case here, a failed and fuoriposto attempt at eristic.

  20. How is it that my post is up here three times? After trying to post it several times with no luck, I went back to doing homework. Now I’ve come back to it here and there’s three of them.

    Sorry about that.

    It’s gotta be my browswer. I’m ancient. It’s just that every time I went to post yesterday I got an error message.

  21. Goodness gracious, now I can’t even get the “explaining that I couldn’t post” post to post.

  22. “he [Ross] didn’t believe the stuff he wrote in his dissertation. For the moment let’s say that’s true. That would make him dishonest.”

    Would it? What’s the nature of the obligation he’s violating?

  23. Hi Nic,
    Nic: “whats the nature of the obligation he’s violating?”
    would you agree that if Ross claims he really believes the world is younger than 4.5 billion years old, yet he claims through his research and his thesis that the world is older than he believes it is would be an inconsistency in his claims?

  24. I suppose that depends on the nature/status of the “research” claims.
    Which is, again, why I ask what the nature of the obligation is that he supposedly has to believe a body of claims that comprise a dominant view in the scientific community.

    It’s most certainly an inconsistency in his claims, quite a few years worth of inconsistency. But that doesn’t help us unless we know that he has some sort of obligation to believe a particular body of research that he has interacted with.

    PS – you have a comment on your blog site.

  25. in my view, in answer to your question about the nature of the obligation he is violating, you and I both agree his claims are inconsistent.
    in that case I assert he has violated the presumption of consistency that you and I both exhibit, and I assert most people expect. I think that he has willfully violated the ‘obligation’ of consistency. I think I could reasonably argue that morally that would equate to ‘deception’.

  26. Please forgive me for arriving late to the conversation, but I feel the need to address a few things here. First off, I feel there can be little question as to the dishonesty of Mr. Ross. He clearly did not believe the work he was doing was true, and this undermines the very process within which he is working scientifically. So at minimum, he was scientifically dishonest (seeing science as being a search for truth). His actions subsequent to getting his degree suggest his motivations were that which I elucidated in my first post. I admit this is speculative, but prior evidence directs me (e.g. M. Behe) to such an assertion.
    As to my ability to make moral claims and support them, it is unwarranted to assume I cannot, and ethically questionable to assert such a claim without giving me the opportunity to do so. I happen to be quite well versed in the ways in which evolution can and does account for human and non-human morality (e.g. J. Rachels, “Created from Animals” offers one of many such defenses).
    Finally, to say that evolutionary processes are accidental shows (to put it charitably) a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. While the processes of evolution by natural selection may be irrational (see R. Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker”) they are quite the opposite of accidental (see D. Dennett, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”).

Comments are closed.