pcs

Hmm...I think you sold me on the placebo effect.

When did they actually "burn a heretic?" Or for that matter, when did they attack an embassy, gather by the thousands to burn effigies and flags, or commit any other acts of mass violence? I don't know about Christian extremists, but I'm pretty sure most young men claiming to be vocal atheists draw strong psychological parallels to Kleibolds and Harrises. Or does that generalization that cross a line?

What we now consider to be the constitutional right to privacy was not "discovered" until Poe v. Ullman in 1961, in dissent. That may change in the future. By one standard of construction, and by far not an undisputed one. Aside from this "principle-based" construction, you might note that the current Administration has been accused of appointing justices less likely than most to view current Establishment clause case law in a different light. Like Bush v. Gore? And Justice Breyer is on record as promoting an ethic of "active liberty" in interpretating law and constructing constitutional findings. And when the Courts turn against you, too, will you find democracy as such a bad way to get things done? But not the "contribute something" philosophy, apparantly. Perhaps you should add to the thread rather than attacking other members. I mean, at least contribute as much as Aardvark does before you set off on derailing it, m'kay?

Yes I can. Fortunately, for you anyway, Roe was decided on entirely different legal ground. If it weren't, then case law would either permit Congress to restrict abortion in the first trimester under the Commerce Clause or restrict them from regulating the commercial transfer of him tissue. So why don't you stop moaning and groaning about it and find another word besides organs?

Yes. Now that's what I call a gigantic strawman. So full of hate. I'm surprised you've managed to complete butcher a simple, three sentence post. How in the hell did you pull that out of an objection to IMM's characterization of Roe's foundation? The magic of paranoia? More importantly, if I had made the case you attributed to me, then how stunted, dishonest, and touchy does somebody have to be to get pissed off when an alternative legal construct for regulating abortion is presented? Not you of course. Anti-social today, eh?

In Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy was extended to ones "health," not one's organs.

Here's Roe v. Wade. Find whatever part of the decision you need to that gives personal sovereignty over ones organs. [1]. Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.

Why not? We're not talking about a peer reviewed journal after all. In fact, we're talking about NASA's PAO.

It does not follow, however, that the people who best decide what's in the public interest are scientists. That's a whole other argument, of course. But I'm not overly concerned with the responsibility of a democracy to fund science, I'm concerned with what constitutes an appropriate public affairs operation in existing Big Science institutions. And as you pointed out, Big Science is accountable to some sort of public interest. I don't think this claim holds up under scrutiny. The expansion of scientific knowledge in the 20th century far outpaces that of any previous period in human history, and while we may argue it's built on a foundation of 19th century formalism the fact remains the expansion was conducted under the auspices of decidedly goal-oriented agencies with budgets to justify. Whether those discoveries opened new areas or not, a non-trivial amount of basic research ties directly to existing practical problems. 1. I don't think censorship is the right term. Deutsch didn't propose suppressing information, only qualifying it in a manner to placate the ID political paradigm. 2. Why is that inappropriate?

George Deutsch was a junior staffer in NASA's public affairs office. He resigned in the midst of an uproar kicked off by a memo he wrote dictating content for a PA website. So one of the larger issues in play pertains to the appropriate role of public affairs in Big Science--the community of institutions, researchers, policymakers and implementers associated with large government and corporate scientific enterprises. Keep in mind that the stakes here often involve public or private investment beyond anything reseachers over a century ago might've considered attainable. And given the broad scope of the aims and resources attached, Big Science may attract greater non-scientific scrutiny. I think Pangloss was aiming for this sort of discussion, so let's try to meet his standard.

Then permit me to lay it out for you again. Deutsch claims he wrote his resume in anticipation of graduation. You've pointed out that the resume was received in 2005. You have not pointed out a contradiction between these two statements. Therefore, your observation of the timeline is irrelevant. Out of courteousy, let me elaborate further. If I pointed out there was no Santa Claus in 2005, it would be as relevant a timeline consideration as your point about when NASA received Deutsch's resume. On only one point to our mutual satisfaction, that NASA received the resume after Deutsch's presumed graduation. What's not to jibe? Deutsch says he wrote a resume before he was supposed to graduate. You haven't shown a contradiction between that and the NASA's receipt of said resume after the anticipated graduation date.

Oh, and Deutsch has taken on the "I informed NASA" defense. Care to respond? And how is that a response to that particular statement, as opposed to an acknowledge of the first statement y made on the issue? But you've shown no strawman whatsoever, let alone a deliberate one.

That point was raised to indicate that his resume may have had The question is did he send it himself at all, or if he did was it even relevant in the appointment process. For all you know, the story could be that some staffer filed his resume with the Bush-Cheney campaign at the appropriate personnel office. He's not claiming that he sent it period. Yes, restating the charge you're aiming to refute doesn't quite count as a refutation, right?

Doesn't look like your hypothesis holds up. Where did I describe that statement in particular as being an ad hom? So you agree, it's an ad hom.

Which has little to do with the fact that IQ is a positive predictor of educational success. Severian made a similar point relevant here regarding any science expressing confidence in its theories short of those in typically produced by the particle physics community.

Surprisingly, we won't disagree that claims to fact depend a large part on the claims popularity. "Don't feed the troll" was in direct response to what?

IQ, however, is a positive predictor of educational success (Matarazzo, Herman 1984). You're free to stop whenever you'd like. I'd dispute that it is factual, but it definitely was an ad hom

54 percent of American college graduates voted for President Bush in 2004. [1] Do you have some solid evidence supporting your correlation between intelligence and the propensity to elect a President that appoints ID proponents to Nasa PAO?

And it ends...with an ad hom. Nice.

I assumed it wasn't in response to anything. Hence, a non sequitur. In what way?

Another non sequitur.

So your argument is that an inaccurate resume is always fraudulent. Without a rational basis for that argument, it's a statement of faith. Sure. Inaccuracy where it conserns resume = fraud. That's your assumption. Thanks for finally pointing it out in your own words. Yeah I do. False information on a resume = fraud. No it doesn't. Faith does. No, it means belief held without rational basis. Like yours as far as the discussion is concerned. So I can randomly declare victory and win, too, right?

Not by the broader academic and professional science communities.

No I don't. Faith is belief without justification--that's the standard definition. Aardvark (and you on more than one occasion) have expressed views devoid of any rational basis--empirical or otherwise. Thing is neither of you seems willing to admit it. Okay. You personally have failed to present supporting evidence. I also suspect you will continue to fail in this regard. Yes, you need some additional assumptions to make the leap from the discovery of an inaccurate resume to an allegation of fraud. Try again, my friend. But I don't share your faith. Which is another one of your faith-based beliefs, apparantly. Actually, it relies only on the faith that the allegation stands through self-evidence. The resume's inaccuracy is incidental to your argument. I think you mispelled "our superstitions" there.