Has it come to this?

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC.

Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University speculated that while the performance of men and women in science was, on average equal, there were more men at the extremes. There are both more male idiots and more male geniuses sums up his thesis.

Since Harvard was in the business of hiring geniuses this could explain why the science faculty at Harvard was lopsidedly male.

In the ensuing outcry Summers was forced to resign.

James Watson, the Nobel-prize-winning co-discoverer of the double helix recently stated his belief that people from sub-Saharan Africa were on average less intelligent than people who traced their ancestry to Europe. Europeans were in turn, on average, less intelligent than people whose family trees originated in North Asia.

Watson's English book tour was cancelled and he was sacked from his job as Chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

I do not want to discuss the rights and wrongs of the views expressed by Summers and Watson.

I do want to ask the following question.

If people who express unorthodox and, let's face it, distasteful, views are subject to such harsh penalties HOW MUCH FAITH CAN WE PLACE ON WHAT COMES FROM ACADEME?

We distrust the Murdock media because, the token Philip Adams aside, we suspect that those who do not tow the Murdock party line will suffer career damage.

Do we now have to treat what emanates from academe with similar suspicion?

Has the "academic media" become a clone, albeit with a different agenda, of the Murdock media?

The Summers and Watson affairs demonstrate yet again the need for people to be able to express their views without fear of sanction. Anything less undermines trust.

I happen to think the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.

But in view of the Summers and Watson affairs how can I be certain I'm getting the full story?

i have long thought your posts were prejudiced and naive. it turns out you couldn't help it, poor lad- you've been believing what you're told by academics. next, you'll tell me you've discovered some pollies are not totally reliable. where will it end? the horror! (btw, isn't it murdoch?)

Well DEMOS,

If you don't recognise irony then you don't.

I'm simply pointing out how the censorship of political correctness can be as damaging to credibility as any other type of censorship.

I stand corrected. It should be "Murdoch" nor "Murdock."

STEVEN....

and of course.. origin of life by EVOLUTION is absolutely true, and all scientists who rely on funding and grants.. who espouse this scientific orthodoxy are doing so out of the purity of their objective hearts :)

HAHAH de HAHHA.. rolling around the floor..kicking my legs up.. waving my arms around.. with a wild and cynical grin on my self righteous face :)

Demos might think ur biased.. I think ur a breath of fresh air :)
and I'm going advise the 'finance committee' to start budgeting for you 0_-

Who needs universities, academics, or research? ...We don't need to make new discoveries and create new knowledge. So what if in science and technology, many inventions are the result of the creative ideas of university professors and their advanced students - for example, progress in space travel, electronic computers, laser-beam surgery, atomic energy - just to name a few. All have depended heavily on the expertise of university faculty members. Then there's archaeologists who explore the ruins of ancient cities, historians who reveal events of the past, and psychologists who develop new ways of treating mental disorders - they're all on university staffs. Symphonies may be composed by music professors, and insights into political events are offered by political science professors...

Then of course certain developing countries like Asia, Africa, and South America - don't need immediate help of universities to solve
pressing problems. For example air and water pollution, drug use by teenagers, heavy motor car traffic, mental illness, inadequate housing, and food shortage.

Should we trust academics? -Of course not. Afterall we know it all. We'll eventually even be able to cure cancer.

boaz, I won't go to far into a debate about creationism v evolution right now, but I'll say simply that most people, when presented with the idea of creationism which isn't based on scientific principles at all, begin rolling around with laughter at the idea that people honestly believe the earth's just 6,000 years old. Whatever you feel about evolutionary theory, at least it's an attempt to explain origins based on what's actually around us, instead of resorting to the simplistic 'god did it' explanation.

stevenlmeyer... you say you don't want to discuss the merits of the claims made by this erstwhile professor, but you also complain that he's being unfairly censored.

You can't discuss the fairness of the censorship without scrutinising his claims and how much of a background he has in the actual matter he's discussing.
That isn't actually his specialisation, you'll find most of the claims he has made have been debunked.

Put simply, he's a sloppy scientist, and if you're going to make such insulting radical claims, you damn well need to get your facts lined up. He hasn't.

Cont'd.