…and this is a 
Moran on Ross
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 20, 2007 8:11 AM, by PZ Myers
Larry Moran takes apart the Marcus Ross case in some detail. Ross is the young earth creationist who recently received his Ph.D. from the University of Rhode Island.
In this situation we have an example of someone who carefully hid his true belief from the thesis committee, or at least went out of his way to give them an excuse to avoid facing up to the main problem. This is deceptive and antithetical to how science is supposed to operate. It opens a whole other can of worms. While most of us would agree that openly advocating a young Earth in your thesis would be grounds for failure, we couldn't fail someone who effectively lied about his "scientific" opinion. We put our faith in honesty and scientific integrity whenever possible. It's the default assumption.
But here's the rub. Although there wasn't anything in his thesis about a 10,000 year old Earth it wasn't the case that his examining committee was completely ignorant of Ross' true views on paleontology. In fact, they were aware of the history. They knew Ross was a Young Earth Creationist when they admitted him to graduate school and they had no reason to suspect that he had changed his mind.
The bottom line is that faculty of Rhode Island University gave a Ph.D. degree in geology to someone they knew to be a "scientist" who believed that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. Furthermore, they gave a Ph.D. to someone who they knew was deliberately misrepresenting his "scientific" views in his thesis. They had every reason to suspect that this misrepresentation was for the sole purpose of getting the Ph.D. since Ross knew that by being honest about his rejection of a old Earth, he would not graduate. This is a double whammy since not only was Ross ignorant of the basic principles in his field but also ignorant of the principles of scientific integrity.
Some people are spinning this as scientists demanding a litmus test for irrelevant religious beliefs, and insisting that we can't judge a student for his beliefs. It's true that we shouldn't and I don't evaluate my students now or my grad students in the past on the basis of their beliefs. But that's not what's being said here. Ross was a two-faced liar who would say one thing to his committee, and another to the public. I might be able to forgive that if he were lying about personal matters that are not part of his committee's purview—but he was lying about the science he was doing. That isn't forgivable.
If I'd been on his committee, I would have directly asked him to defend his public statements about the age of the material he was studying—not his statements to his committee alone, but to the public at large. I would have insisted that he defend those comments scientifically. And when he failed to do so, I would have voted to deny him his degree.
Although, more realistically, if I'd been in that department, the rejection would have occurred at the admission step, or in the preliminary exam. Apparently, the university knew he was a young earth creationist at the time he admitted him, which is simply appalling. I would expect new grad students to have some basic knowledge of the discipline—professing something so stupidly at odds with the science ought to disqualify him immediately, and his slot in the graduate program given to someone more deserving and more teachable.
Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate, any more than Kent Hovind and his fake degree.
Comments
"Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate, any more than Kent Hovind and his fake degree."
Speaking as someone who is working towards his PhD, I entirely agree. Quite frankly, what Ross did makes me sick.
Posted by: SteveF | February 20, 2007 8:23 AM
But, would he have passed anything if he would have written the creationism theories he believed into his work? Would he ever have gotten a degree from our university (I live in RI too) if he would have been up front with his beliefs?
Wasn't he just answering in the way that he was taught? Wasn't he giving the answers that were expected?
I think I would have done something similar. A degree from a university is a big thing to have. An important thing to have. So, if I was studying science and wanted to seek a career in a field I would do whatever it took. But in this case it took giving the answers that the passing grade required.
Eh. That's just my opinion. I need to read up a bit more on this article.
z.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | February 20, 2007 8:26 AM
Another way to look it is that while he got his degree by refusing to argue his point of view on his major point of interest, but once he has his PhD he will use its authority to support the same views he refused to argue. He has evaded the kind of peer criticism that makes science work.
This is the first time I've heard that R.I.U grants PhDs. I think that a lot of innocents will find their degrees devalued.
I confess I would actually be sympathetic to his point of view in some less scientific area. For me to have gotten a PhD in several of my own areas of interest would have required some rote regurgitation of things I didn't really believe.
Posted by: John Emerson | February 20, 2007 8:36 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 8:36 AM
No, you aren't understanding anything.
A Ph.D. is not supposed to be earned by parroting back the answers you expect the examiners want -- it is supposed to be earned by doing creative, scholarly work. As Larry noted, disagreeing with the committee is fine, we actually like an opinionated candidate who pushes back with different ideas.
Don't bother going for an advanced degree if you think it is a matter of going through the motions and giving the "right" answers.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 20, 2007 8:37 AM
Man, how many more talk.origins regulars are going to graduate to becoming big-time bloggers? T.o seems like a breeding ground for bloggers these days.
Not that I'm complaining, of course, it's just uncanny.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | February 20, 2007 8:40 AM
Actually, my "another way to look at it" is the same thing Moran says.
I'm wondering whether the RIU Earth Sciences dept. might be a financially struggling department which has to accept all warm-body applicants.
I'd have to repeat that this kind of thing is fairly common in social sciences and humanities. Grad students often refer to their grad studies as "jumping through hoops" or "running mazes" and do their work without real committment to its methods and content. Those who feel that way are less likely to graduate, I would suspect, but they often still do.
This kind of regurgitation is much more true in practical programs (medicine, education, nursing, engineering, etc.) which have a liberal arts component.
Posted by: John Emerson | February 20, 2007 8:49 AM
This guy is making a mockery of academic credibility.
Misrepresenting yourself to an awards comittee to gain an award that you plan to use to misrepresent yourself to the public is just plain sickening.
This guy is jerk, but Rhode Island U should be very very ashamed at letting him get away with it. (Out of fear of criticism for being anti-religious?)
Posted by: zayzayem | February 20, 2007 8:53 AM
Like John, I'm wondering why exactly they chose to accept this candidate. Fastovsky is an impeccable palaeontologist and I'd imagine there are plenty of geologists out there who'd like to do a PhD (I know myself how hard it can be to get on a program). Why on earth choose one who is deeply intellectually dishonest, a position which is anathema to the basic principles of science?
Posted by: SteveF | February 20, 2007 8:54 AM
He should be recognized as Marcus Ross, B.S. Artist
Posted by: J-Dog | February 20, 2007 8:55 AM
If he completed the work necessary, there's no cause to treat him differently than any other grad student.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 8:56 AM
Caledonian, once again, getting a Ph.D. is supposed to require a lot more than "completing work". I gather you don't have one, or you'd be aware of that (I would hope).
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 9:06 AM
If they are a struggling department (I have no idea), they've just learned the first lesson: when you're in that kind of hole, lowering your standards isn't the way to get out. This kind of publicity is going to hurt.
Think about it. If you were the next young SJ Gould or GG Simpson, would URI be on your short list of grad schools?
On the other hand, if you were a starry-eyed bible college student who dreamed of disproving evilution, you now have a compatible secular university to which you can apply.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 20, 2007 9:08 AM
Yeah, you make good points. I agree, it does seem dishonest on Ross' part and a little desperate or stupid on URI's part.
But again, consider these are creationist views - young earth at that - so, I am sure it is tempting to cover it up so that you can just get a degree. Bringing such radical views before a committee that holds your career in their hands sounds like reason enough to fit into their mold.
But I don't have a degree so I am just speculating.
z.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | February 20, 2007 9:17 AM
This happened in our biology department a number of years ago. A M.Sc. student in dev. bio graduated despite her fast held YEC beliefs. I recall talking to her at a bar prior to her defense and she told me that she 'compartmentalized' her beliefs. When asked about the overwhleming evidence for evolution, she agreed and said that she did not beleive that evolution could be rationally disproved, but that gawd had created the illusion of evolution to test their faith.
There you have it. It happens in the Great White North too. At least they didn't grant her a Ph.D.
Posted by: Krakus | February 20, 2007 9:29 AM
Yeah, yeah, it's supposed to be about "something more" - and as is the case with most such claims, it's nonsense. It's always about the work. (In the case of non-scientific fields, the work doesn't even have to be coherent.)
Make up your minds: do you think candidates should be obligated to demonstrate belief on certain positions, or not? Making an exception to require this individual to meet a higher and more-demanding set of criteria isn't exactly just. It would also be a bad idea to begin mandating which beliefs candidates must not only possess, but profess.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 9:32 AM
If Ross had been honest, he would have proposed experiments to support his true beliefs. He may not have gotten his degree or even been admitted into the program in the first place, but he'd be following one of the Big Ten. Something about not giving false witness.
Posted by: Rugosa | February 20, 2007 9:36 AM
Those who aren't outraged seem to feel that if views aren't mainstream then hiding them is acceptable in order to garner a mainstream prize.
I call that duplicity and cowardice.
If these young-earthers are so convinced that their 'theory' is valid, then why are they so reluctant to examine and prove it? Don't bother answering that.
Having watched many PhD applicants struggle, sometimes for years, to develop, test and publish their theses, then go through the gruelling committee phase, I can tell you you can onlt GET a PhD by having novel, ie, non-mainstream, ideas on a subject.
This person has lost sight of the whole point of a Master's or PhD degree - it's not about the framed piece of paper, it's about being committed to the arduous task of getting your theory accepted into the scientific literature. That's why they don't come cheaply.
If you would lie to achieve that, it really negates the whole process. Furthermore, it would call into question the validity of any future work in which you might engage.
It's bogus - just like the applicant in this example, who would likely fare better in politics than he ever will in science.
Posted by: Selma | February 20, 2007 9:39 AM
Rugosa - Wow, exactly. Good point.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | February 20, 2007 9:40 AM
There are similar problems with tenure. Candidates have a tendency to behave in conventional ways that don't offend anyone on the selection committee, and once they have it, those that have weird ideas follow them - including not doing more than the absolute minimum to keep from losing tenure, working on anti-scientific nonsense now that they're immune from basic standards, and so forth.
Supposedly tenure is useful because it permits the intellectual freedom to pursue whatever topics people wish without being subject to political or theoretical infighting. But since there's no means of control once tenure is granted, that just means people try to control who gets tenure that much harder - and people work to disguise their actual positions so they can get tenure.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 20, 2007 9:41 AM
PS Anyone is entitled to believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned. This example would be the equivalent of my going to Inquisitor School to get a red hood so that I could speak out against the Inquisition as an insider.
What would be the point? Why would I want the red hood if I believed the whole thing was a crock?
I think you have to take a stand somewhere, sometime, that's all I'm saying.
Posted by: Selma | February 20, 2007 9:43 AM
Caledonian, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. A lot more than lip service is given to the "something more" in any Ph.D. program that should be allowed to stay in business. Since you obviouly have no real understanding, or have a cynical misunderstanding, of what admission to the "ancient and honorable company of scholars" is meant to signify, your perspective on Ross frankly is of no value.
Simply mouthing the words, as I pointed out in Larry's comment thread, demonstrates about the same level of "understanding" of science that a cargo cultist has of industry. That's not what a Ph.D. is supposed to be awarded for.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 9:43 AM
I turn up to the lab at 8.30 every week day, work my ass off till 10pm, go home, catch a few hours sleep, do it all over again. I've been doing this for two years now, because my PhD (and science in general) means something to me. The same applies to my peers; PhDs ultimately do mean "something more." I'm therefore not overly favourably inclined towards someone who, irrespective of the quality of his work, did not hold themselves to the basic standards of intellectual honesty.
The guy lied, its as simple as that. When we start making excuses for lying, its a sad day indeed.
Posted by: SteveF | February 20, 2007 9:50 AM
PZ wrote: Apparently, the university knew he was a young earth creationist at the time he admitted him, which is simply appalling.
But they also said:
"We did not know nearly as much about creationism and young earth and intelligent design as we do now."
I can't help but read something between the lines here...
Posted by: windy | February 20, 2007 10:00 AM
They knew Ross was a Young Earth Creationist when they admitted him to graduate school and they had no reason to suspect that he had changed his mind.
Exactly. That twerp went out of his way to shove his belief in their faces and they still gave him a pass.
Why did they do it? It's the liberal guilt disease. Next time, tell him where to shove it.
Q. You've been through 4 years of college science and a masters program and you still say the earth is 10K years old?
A. Yup.
Q. Go shove it up your ass.
Posted by: George | February 20, 2007 10:00 AM
It would be interesting to see a discussion of the legal ramifications of denying a candidate such as Ross at either the admissions or the defense stage. I seem to recall a case in Texas where a student involved the law when a prof made a litmus test of belief a condition for writing letters of recommendation.
Any legal eagles out there care to comment?...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | February 20, 2007 10:01 AM
Personally, I liken this situation to one of the back stories of the show The Wire on HBO.
For those not familiar with the show, there was a character who was enrolled in college, attempting to get his degree in business. Unfortunately, the actual work he was putting into becoming a businessman outside of class was to try and turn a drug ring he had started in the Baltimore projects into a money-making business; he was applying his education to illegal/dishonest activities.
He was essentially playing the same part as Mr. Ross, putting in a "positive" effort while in class, but using that positive effort toward a patently dishonest end. This character, of course, ended up reaping the true "benefits" of his "hard work".
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 20, 2007 10:03 AM
I'm coming down on the other side of this one, this time.
I'll begin by loosely paraphrasing my graduate advisor, years ago: "You don't have to believe your topic, you just have to demonstrate and defend it. When you have that degree, you can afford the convenience of conviction."
Science, for it to be science, must be a process, not a belief structure (Actually, that should be said of all academic research.). You have been regularly inundated with the posts of fools who have THE ANSWER, and were more than willing either to sell it to you, or cram it down your throat. Frustration with that is entirely understandable.
However, it is the integrity of science we seek to preserve, not the integrity of scientists. At the end of the day, we're all lacking, one way or the other. It is only by the accumulation of data where science makes any advances at all, and that requires a commitment to the process, not the result.
One's personal beliefs are irrelevant to the process: that's what we have been saying to the anti-scientists all along. We can only be true to that dictum when dissertations like the one in question, if sound, are accepted, irrespective the personal beliefs of the candidate. The only matter at question is the soundness of the science, on its own merits.
From a practical standpoint, it is actually somewhat refreshing that Dr. Ross was appointed to a position at Liberty. At least he will enter the position actually having done science (as opposed to some PhD-in-a-can from Fly-By-Nite-U. like Hovind was). But there is a career danger present for him as well: at some point, he may run afoul of the system, merely for having done science. We've seen that happen before at a number of institutions. I do not envy him his success.
Ultimately, we should only judge the content of the science, not the content of the scientist. Others do the latter, and we justifiably excoriate them for it.
Even given the compelling nature of the empirical evidence accumulated over generations, there must always be room for re-examination, no matter how fruitless it may prove to be. There must be room for the researcher to doubt the conclusions of predecessors, lest we fall into the trap Medieval Aristotelianism encountered.
Of course, the mere room for doubt doesn't make all doubt fit curricular matter for schoolchildren or survey courses.
Posted by: Farb | February 20, 2007 10:11 AM
Again, no. When you publish results (and submitting a Ph.D. thesis is a form of publication, not to mention that if it's any good it should yield journal articles as well) you are certifying that, to the best of your current knowledge, the results you're publishing are correct. Now, perhaps you've been really lucky and your results have OVERTURNED some accepted scientific belief. Congratulations- your career is off to a super start! So we have to carefully distinguish belief in accepted wisdom from belief in the veracity of one's own research results. Only the latter is the troublesome issue in Morris's case.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 10:18 AM
Don't bother going for an advanced degree if you think it is a matter of going through the motions and giving the "right" answers.
I'm sure he's now giving all the "right" answers at Liberty U.
Yes, Jerry, yes. I hate gays too! Jerry - you know I was kidding about the earth being really old. I just said that to get through the Ph.D. program.
But my students, they are giving me a hard time for lying and saying that stuff! I explain that you have to tell some white lies to get ahead in life. I don't know what else to say! Did I do the right thing, Jerry?
Posted by: George | February 20, 2007 10:21 AM
Pardon me, but it seems to me that this certificate holder is not really looking for a job in science or to actually do any more science than he has already done. His sole purpose, as was Wells apparently, is to enhance his ability to lie for his religion. For any achievement and any group of people, most that deserve it get it and most that do not deserve it won't. There will always be a few cases at the junction of the two subgroups that are or appear to be incorrectly decided. This guy got a PhD. that he shouldn't, in my opinion, have, but his publishing record in the future is likely to destroy any credibility he has gained in short order. The biggest loser here is really the granting institution and program. Their credibility will likely take longer to recover than for Ross's to drop.
Posted by: Ray S | February 20, 2007 10:29 AM
I think Caledonian has a good point. It's all well and good to say what the ideal standards are SUPPOSED to be. A PhD is SUPPOSED to indicate independence and ability to formulate original ideas. Let me ask anyone out there who has been involved in a graduate program if they know of a single student who has failed an oral defense for their PhD? I don't mean the apocyphal story from your department, I mean you actually heard about it at the time? I started grad school 11 years ago. Between that and postdoccing, both at large universities, there were probably 100-200 defenses in my departments, and those 0 failures. I don't even know what the process is for a student who fails a defense.
I think much like grade inflation, there is very little incentive for the degree granters to enforce these ideals. You make a student work their ass off for 4-8 years (and as much as we all hope the work involves deep conversations over the meaning of the universe, most of the work involves long periods of tedium puntured by occasional interuptions due to broken equipment and even more infrequent interesting results.). The fact is at the end of that time, you're going to find out that some of them just really cannot be described as "independent thinkers" or "original", even if they passed candidacy exams. You can't necessary know that when they start, so you can't put it all on the admissions process. Do you have the heart to say no? If you don't it sticks out all that much more when you do refuse to grant the degree.
Posted by: Ian | February 20, 2007 10:29 AM
In a properly run department the losers don't get a chance to fail their defense- they are counseled out of the program and sent off with a master's degree (assuming they have met the requirements for that).
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 10:31 AM
...they are counseled out of the program and sent off with a master's degree (assuming they have met the requirements for that).
Having worked my ass off specifically to get a Master's degree, that common practice annoys me. I've just started my PhD, and my M.Sc. was very good practice for it - much better introduction to research than even a high-level honor degree at the undergrad level (which is often the minimum requirement to go from B.Sc. to PhD). I'd rather my M.Sc. was not devalued by awarding something identical to washouts from PhD programs - I don't like feeling like my degree is the same as a consolation prize given to low-grade researchers.
Posted by: TheBrummell | February 20, 2007 10:45 AM
I admittedly don't no much of the back story here, but has anyone considered that this guy is misrepresenting his religious beliefs rather than his scientific ones? It seems implausible to me that a true zealot of the creationist/evangelical bent would be willing to write the dissertation it sounds like this guy did. After all, don't these folks seem to put far more stock in one one says than what one does? Furthermore, it strikes me that fewer people have achieved lasting success as scientific frauds than insincere religious leaders.
Posted by: anon | February 20, 2007 10:46 AM
Absolutely, Steve, both to your point about publishing results and the proper way to conduct a PhD program. Getting the degree requires a tremendous amount of work, but there are multiple weed-out points (call them safeguards, if you prefer), so that poorer candidates won't wind up throwing away 4-8 years and then failing their defense. The first year of course work is one such point, as is the qualifying exam, and the requirement to constantly meet with one's research adviser. At any of those points, it is possible to determine who should be there, and who should be sent away.
And, if you are qualified to study, then you must also be committed to scientific honesty (accurate reporting of your research results is one such facet of this principle). This is not tantamount to requiring that one accept some materialistic vision of the world. It does mean that one must stand by the veracity of research results, unless they can be shown to be wrong in some fashion.
As an analogy, we require that engineers sign off on the work that they do; if something goes wrong with it, they can be held accountable. Why? By doing the work, and submitting it for actual construction, they certify that (to the best of their knowledge) what they have done is accurate. An engineer who said, "I don't believe the stress/strain relationship actually exists, but I'll use it for building regardless," would not (nor should) be allowed to sign off on any work that they do.
Posted by: THobbes | February 20, 2007 10:51 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 10:56 AM
If i believed that 2+2=5 I would ot expect to be awarded a degree in math. Submitting a thesis that states views counter to your true beliefs impeaches all your future work, how can anyone take you seriously if you reverse your thinking every two weeks. Let's not even talk about a christer lying to get what he wants. This moe has no credibility as a scientist or as a christer.
Posted by: ckerst | February 20, 2007 11:00 AM
I admittedly don't no much of the back story here, but has anyone considered that this guy is misrepresenting his religious beliefs rather than his scientific ones? It seems implausible to me that a true zealot of the creationist/evangelical bent would be willing to write the dissertation it sounds like this guy did. After all, don't these folks seem to put far more stock in one one says than what one does? Furthermore, it strikes me that fewer people have achieved lasting success as scientific frauds than insincere religious leaders.
I'm ashamed to admit that I am related by marriage to Marcus. He and his parents are very nice people, but they are the crazy evangelicals of the family.
Posted by: J | February 20, 2007 11:00 AM
Ummm ... do the words "Kurt Wise" ring a bell?
Posted by: John Pieret | February 20, 2007 11:02 AM
FWIW, I'm with Caledonian and Farb on this one. It seems that some commenters are overstating the grandeur of earning a Ph.D. and ignoring that Ross apparently did sound science. Now he's at Liberty University, i.e. he is scientifically irrelevant. So the f*** what? As for RIU, I don't think they're tarnished at all; is Harvard tarnished because of Duane Gish? If graduates choose to make themselves irrelevant, it is not a reflection on the degree granting institution, IMO.
Cheers
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | February 20, 2007 11:07 AM
Correction, I meant Kurt Wise, not Duane Gish. Sorry.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | February 20, 2007 11:08 AM
Ian--
I know one person who did not pass their dissertation defense. (That is, I know this person, not just know "of them".) I know of more cases where people did not pass---but perhaps things are different in the humanities.
More importantly, the defense isn't the whole story. Most of the weeding (at least in the departments I know of) gets done PRIOR to the writing of the actual dissertation: comprehensive exams, dissertation proposals, and the like. I know many people who were "encouraged" to leave their Ph.D. program and many more that were flat out told to leave prior to completing their dissertation. In fact, any committee that would let someone languish for 5-10 years writing a dissertation and not clue the candidate in on his/her grievous academic deficiencies is probably negligent in its duties.
Posted by: Matt | February 20, 2007 11:09 AM
On the other hand, if you were a starry-eyed bible college student who dreamed of disproving evilution, you now have a compatible secular university to which you can apply.
U.R.I. The Creationist-Friendly University!
I'm sure the admissions department is happy. Flocks of dodos will soon be descending on Rhode Island.
Posted by: George | February 20, 2007 11:12 AM
Re shaggy- So any ideal that is not universally and fully practiced should simply be abandoned. That's the sort of outlook I would expect from a cynical teenager, but healthy individuals should eventually outgrow it.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 11:17 AM
As mentioned before, Ross's PhD stands as evidence against the ID creationist view-point being of any use in doing good science. When it actually mattered, he (like everyone else, nearly all the time) had to resort to the reality-based views and methods of science. His fantasy-based ones couldn't cut it - and he knew that full well.
Posted by: SEF | February 20, 2007 11:18 AM
That right there is something that needs more attention.
University resources aren't infinite. This yahoo probably edged out someone more deserving of the investment.
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 20, 2007 11:22 AM
Ross obtained a degree by lying about it's content. I don't consider him deserving of the doctorate.
I disagree with this, and I'm a current PhD candidate and an agnostic. Fortunately, my field is mathematics, so I don't have matters of faith to grapple with -- the Sylow theorems are true whether or not groups "exist" in any philosophical sense.. As I understand it, a PhD's purpose is to report demonstrated capability, not fitness to do a task. Ross is demonstrably capable of doing rigorous, defensible scientific work. That he chooses to embrace a myth contrary to established scientific knowledge is lamentable, but inasmuch as his doctoral work doesn't promulgate his personal beliefs, I don't really see the problem.
And as to him using his credentials to bolster his viewpoints: I'd think he'd be coming from a place of weakness, having published work directly contrary to his stated beliefs. What's he to do if that work is cited back to him as evidence of an older earth? Anything he cold do in resposne could only damage his credibility as a proponent for a young earth.
Posted by: Jake | February 20, 2007 11:23 AM
About failed graduate student: yes, I know of three students in our department who have failed to pass their oral examinations, and, I also know of two others who, in my opinion, should have failed their exams. Tragically, no system is perfect. At its core, the whole enterprise of science, however, depends on integrity. It speaks volumes about the character of an individual who actively choses dishonesty as a road to academic honors. Of course, it also reaffirms what academicians already know about Liberty Baptist 'College.'
On a more constructive note. there are any number of books on the philosophy of science, two that are perhaps minimally dated (but timeless in any relevant sense) are: The Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski and A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Samir Okasha. The former should instill a scientific 'ethos' in any thoughtful individual, the latter provides concise (139 pp) information on the history of scientific thought, power of scientific sxplantion, Scientific reasoning, as well as Science and its Critics. Worthwhile reading.
Posted by: Mothra | February 20, 2007 11:26 AM
Am I missing something? Just what does earning a PhD mean? I assumed, layman that I am, that earning a PhD meant that you had mastered a subject. Can't you master a subject in which you don't believe? I see atheists that appear to have a mastery of theological topics. Assuming they earned one, would they be denied a PhD in theology because of their lack of belief? I'm sure that for most it's easier to master a subject in which you believe. But, I'm also sure that lack of belief does not rule out the ability to master a subject.
Is there more to a PhD than masterey of a subject?
Posted by: placebo | February 20, 2007 11:33 AM
This alternate universe in which Harvard is a university struggling to fill its halls with warm bodies and bugger their qualifications...where is it? My blog is in a different universe, and I do not know how you are connecting to it.
Harvard can afford a few Kurt Wises without frightening off good prospective students. URI might not.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 20, 2007 11:33 AM
I think Farb has it right. So long as he was competent in the process of science, what he believes should be relevant. He has shown he is capable of acting as if he believes in the principles of science.
I thought a PhD was a measure of competence and not related to ideology. If I studied a for a doctor of divinity and passed, my being an athiest should be irrelevant. I think we are not sticking by liberal principles here.
Posted by: reason | February 20, 2007 11:34 AM
The possibility that Ross will use his Ph.D. to decieve and manipulate the unwary is of far more concern to me than his belief in silly things.
In turn, I see his belief in a silly contradiction to his thesis as more serious than a simple lack of belief in his thesis. Since a great deal of published work later turns out to be wrong, I don't see how a lack of belief would be a problem. But this is more than that - Ross believes in things that directly contradict his thesis, and he did not include these contradictions in his thesis.
Posted by: llewelly | February 20, 2007 11:36 AM
What does it mean to master a subject? Some people are arguing that it means being able to echo back your mentor's opinions on a subject.
I'd say it means competency in the background material, demonstrated ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom.
Ross might have gotten the first bit, but that's it.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 20, 2007 11:40 AM
Maybe someone can comment on this hypothetical. Was there any way Mr. Ross could have constructed a hypothesis for his thesis that accurately represented his YEC beliefs while also demonstrating an authoritative grasp of standard thought in the field of geoscience? It seems to me that if he conceived a novel method of examining/testing the fossil records (and by novel I don't mean the standard YEC talking points) or the methods of dating those records, he'd be demonstrating the sort of knowledge and critical thinking that one expects from a Ph.D. candidate.
And this is probably asking a bit much, but since he'd have to prove his thesis in order to get the degree, the process might have caused him to critically examine his own beliefs. Like I say, a lot to ask. The course of action Mr. Ross chose was not only dishonest, but it also prevented him from stimulating personal growth.
Posted by: Kurzleg | February 20, 2007 11:48 AM
Sorry placebo it seems we crossed, with almost identical points of view.
But I think what is interesting is that there is someone (Ross) who shows the capability of a "first class mind" of being able to think consistently in different ways, but still decides he believes in Fundamentalist nonsense of the grossest kind. Someone who is probably capable of understanding how one might see it all as nonsense. Such compartalisation!
He is a very interesting specimin. Worthy of study I would have thought.
Posted by: reason | February 20, 2007 11:48 AM
I understand not wanting to grant PhDs to YECs, but I wouldn't go so far as to ban them from graduate studies completely. I've heard too many stories of fundies and YECs who've had their Road to Damascus deconversion because of an enlightening course of study or a compelling professor--E.O. Wilson and Michael Shermer among them. For every BSer like Marcus Ross, there's probably another YEC who explores biology/geology/etc. to "understand the enemy" and end up seeing the truth.
Posted by: False Prophet | February 20, 2007 11:50 AM
Kurzleg,
In a relatively narrow sense, Ross could have demonstrated the catastrophic deposition of a particular set of deposits (they are found here and there throughout the geologic record). He would have had to water down his ideas, i.e. not refer to a global flood and generally discuss things in a traditional geologic context. However, at least his work would have been vaguely linked to the kind of ideas that YECs espouse.
He doesn't even appear to have done this.
Posted by: SteveF | February 20, 2007 12:02 PM
Steve Labonne:
What part of this "...ignoring that Ross apparently did sound science" don't you understand?
My seems to me that you are elevating the earned Ph.D. to something like membership in a priesthood. That is exactly not what it is all about. Perhaps Ross was a hard working and productive member of the lab in which he worked; his advisor might well have been glad to have had him. But you, from some apparent moral high ground, are free to criticize what Ross has accomplished, I suppose. I just think it's all overblown and, in the end, irrelevant to the scientific enterprise.
Cheers
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | February 20, 2007 12:12 PM
placebo:
This topic came up before, in the initial comment thread on the Ross incident. This is what I said back then:
The great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges once said of the Catholics in his country that they believed in an afterlife but didn't appear to be interested in it. Other than their Mass attendance, you couldn't tell that the matter weighed on their minds. He said that his own situation was the opposite: "I am interested, but I do not believe." (Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian was on his recommended reading list, along with the apocryphal gospels.) He said of Omar Khayyam, mathematician and author of the Rubaiyat, that Khayyam had been agnostic about traditional Islamic beliefs but was still able to debate the most abstruse passages of the Koran in learned theological fashion, since faith is not a prerequisite to theology.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 20, 2007 12:17 PM
The speculations on URI's and Ross's history, reasons, situation and future are just fluff, since no one posting here seems to actually have facts beyond news reports.
Posted by: dkew | February 20, 2007 12:18 PM
I can't speak for Steve Labonne, but the moral high ground from which I criticize Ross is one in which I didn't lie my way through my PhD.
Man believes in 6000 year old earth. He spends a good part of 4 or so years saying he doesn't believe in a 6000 year old earth. I think his moral ground is somewhat below mine in this regard.
Posted by: SteveF | February 20, 2007 12:18 PM
I see atheists that appear to have a mastery of theological topics. Assuming they earned one, would they be denied a PhD in theology because of their lack of belief?
No, but what if such a person would write a thesis/article purportedly offering evidence for the existence of God [cf. evidence for 65-my old mosasaurs], and then held public lectures saying that the evidence is bogus? Or the other way around? Would we not at least call him dishonest?
Posted by: windy | February 20, 2007 12:19 PM
I think this is a problem that we have to deal with, but I don't know how. Thinking about
the steps a student has to take to fulfill the requirements for a PhD, I don't see where
one could legitimately disqualify such a student.
PZ would have asked him to defend his public statements. Let's say the answer was somthing along the lines of "Oh, I was only kidding in those statements, I was trying to provoke discussion along the lines that Sokal did a few years ago. I don't really believe in that young earth stuff!" How would one respond? Is the guy just a jerk? Or who is
he deceiving, the committee or those who listen to his public statements? I suspect that many of us have played Devil's advocate and argued from positions that we do not hold - though I suspect that we say this is what we are doing when we do it.
To argue that Ross did not understand the science is not necessarily correct. He could have understood it very well, and been able to use it and argue for it, but still not beleived it. Up until very recently, one could have happily used and made quantum mechanics calculations without believing in the probabilistic nature of the world that quantum mechanics implies. In fact, many physicists did just that! Should they have their degrees taken away? For sure, the evidence against YEC is overwhelming whereas that for the probabilistic nature of the world has not been, at least until recently.
I wonder what would have happened if RIU had not granted this bounder a degree on the basis of his beliefs? If he had sued, would he have stood a good chance of winning?
The attitude of Ross angers me greatly, but I'm uncertain how one can deal with people like him. So far, I've not seen any suggestions that are really workable.
Posted by: Adrian Burd | February 20, 2007 12:21 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 20, 2007 12:22 PM
I think creationists should be actively encouraged to take degrees in Geosciences. The exposure to scientific ideas and thinking would do them good. So what if the immediate peer-pressure on one or two of them leads them into tell lies (ie: "give false witness")? I am sure that in far more cases the exposure will lead the student to realize the pathetic inadequacy of creationism.
Posted by: Tristram Brelstaff | February 20, 2007 12:32 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain what the downside is to URI issuing a statement that Ross is an anti-scientific bag of creationist script-reciting shit and they apologize to the world for granting him the Ph.D. and henceforth refuse to recognize it.
What's the downside?
ANd please don't say "lawsuit" without describing the complaint and factual basis for the suit in detail.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 20, 2007 12:36 PM
What does it mean to master a subject? Some people are arguing that it means being able to echo back your mentor's opinions on a subject.
I'd say it means competency in the background material, demonstrated ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom.
Ross might have gotten the first bit, but that's it.
Posted by: PZ Myers
What if Marcus Ross was not a YEC at the time that he earned his PhD, but did believe in a multi-billion year old earth, evolution, and so on? Let's throw in that he is an atheist too. Now, fast forward ahead 5 years and Ross has had an epiphany. For whatever reason Jesus has entered his life, he literally interprets the Bible and is now a YEC. Does this make his PhD less valid? Has he lost his ability to ask good questions that advance our knowledge of the subject, and precisely the opposite: the ability to logically and skillfully critique received wisdom? Should we refer to him as a "former PhD?"
Posted by: placebo | February 20, 2007 12:37 PM
"The attitude of Ross angers me greatly, but I'm uncertain how one can deal with people like him. So far, I've not seen any suggestions that are really workable."
The practical answer is simple; he and his Ph.D. will simply be ignored by the scientific estabilishment. He made his bed and will have to sleep in it; I still fail to see is as any kind of threat to science or the integrity of what it means to earn a Ph.D.
Cheers
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | February 20, 2007 12:38 PM
The attitude of Ross angers me greatly, but I'm uncertain how one can deal with people like him. So far, I've not seen any suggestions that are really workable.
Funny, I've seen several, including my own.
Why doesn't explain exactly why these suggestions aren't "workable"? That is, explain them without engaging in hyperbolic anecdotes about how people will be denied Ph.D.s based on their pizza topping preferences (guess what -- shit like that happens already and the world continues to turn).
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Yes, demonstrated capability to continue to contribute to scientific knowledge. Ross' YEC beliefs cast doubt on that capability -- did anyone really think he was going to continue to produce scientific output that he really didn't believe in? I would seriously question whether he could, without an advisor to guide him. It's possible his committee felt otherwise, but I can't help but wonder if they were afraid of causing a stir by booting him out of the program earlier on.
On a related note: PhD recipients are used to judge their advisors, to some extent. I wonder how Ross' advisor will fare in the aftermath of this.
Posted by: Davis | February 20, 2007 12:41 PM
The practical answer is simple; he and his Ph.D. will simply be ignored by the scientific estabilishment. He made his bed and will have to sleep in it
Actually, the practical answer is that Ross will not be ignored. His bed will include turds tossed into it on a regular basis by the likes of yours truly and others.
Fuckers like George Deutsch and Casey Luskin and Hannah Maxson -- they are NEVER forgotten. They are NEVER ignored. At least, not until they apologize.
[tries to suppress laughter]
Posted by: Great White Wonder | February 20, 2007 12:41 PM
Does that mean you judge the work of other scientists by how prestigious the school is they get their degree from? How interesting ...
Otherwise, why would a person looking to get their own degree and do their own work really care?
I raised Kurt Wise because you asked whether the "next SJ Gould" would shy away from URI because it gave a degree in paleontology to a YEC. Well, if you really are the next Gould you wouldn't because you'd give a YEC one yourself.
Posted by: John Pieret | February 20, 2007 12:45 PM
The awarding of a PhD is reflective only of the recipient's perceived fitness at the time. Holding a PhD simply means that, at some point in the past, the recipient had the potential to contribute to knowledge.
I would simply refer to the person you describe as a "former scientist."
Posted by: Davis | February 20, 2007 12:47 PM
Tristram Brelst