As usual, Scott Aaronson says it better than I did:
[M]ost of the commentary strikes me as missing a key point: that to give a degree to a bozo like this, provided he indeed did the work, can only reflect credit on the scientific enterprise. Will Ross now hit the creationist lecture circuit, trumpeting his infidel credentials to the skies? You better believe it. Will he use the legitimacy conferred by his degree to fight against everything the degree stands for? It can't be doubted.
But here's the wonderful thing about science: unlike the other side, we don't need loyalty oaths in order to function. We don't need to peer into people's souls to see if they truly believe (A or not(A)), or just assume it for practical purposes. We have enough trouble getting people to understand our ideas -- if they also assent to them, that's just an added bonus.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
For the record, A or not(A) is not valid in intuitionistic logic. You only have to assume it if the calculus that you're working in assumes it, otherwise you're free to disregard it.