http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:32:04 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680568 "An agenda?" Not at all. I'm very careful not to take either side, and I say repeatedly that no outside party can possibly know what really happened based on how little information is available. I'm just discussing the social/psychological issues that relate to the lawsuit, as I see them. I thought it was an interesting story that might get readers thinking, it was timely, and I needed a topic for this week's article because I haven't finished a review book yet. So much for my agenda. Characterizing and attacking the speaker while ignoring the matter being discussed is the informal logical fallacy, Ad Hominem, and typically the first response of any type of fundamentalist to something he or she doesn't like hearing. Of course, non-fundamentalists tend to use it, too. Reasonable thought about charged issues is not a common phenomenon. You just need to read blog comments to infer that conclusion! 680568@blogcritics.org Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:32:04 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680533 Inanna, your response to Tim shows that it is in fact you that is the fundamentalist and that you clearly have an agenda in writing this article in the first place. Apart from the first half of his last sentence, his comment was entirely accurate and factual. 680533@blogcritics.org Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:16:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680487 Thanks for sharing, Tim! You've demonstrated my point admirably. 680487@blogcritics.org Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:22:00 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680485 Get the facts straight Inanna! The job posting states: "Results will be interpreted within the context of the evolutionary relationships among the genes and species under study." The "subject under research" is developmental biology -- which is inextricably linked to evolutionary biology these days. I am sick to death of ignorant pundits throwing around "fundamentalists" whenever REAL scientists demand that REAL science go on in science labs. I would suggest you stick to vampires and other ephemera, as you clearly know bugger-all about science.De 680485@blogcritics.org Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:16:55 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680450 Damien--thanks for your comment. I'm not a Christian, or a trained scientist (although I have some scientific training, which isn't the same thing). But I find irrational hyperbole and rigid thinking distressing in any context. There are Neo-Pagan fundamentalists and libertarian fundamentalists and feminist fundamentalists...you name it. But the two groups who seem to have the largest, and most harmful, influence at the moment are the Christian and the scientistic fundamentalists. Unfortunately, many people seem to feel they have to defend the causes of whichever group they sympathize with, and that's how wars get started. Duane: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree: the lawsuit does boil down to Mark Hahn's statements in the termination letter. If Hahn's statement is true, then Abraham's termination is defensible. But Abraham claims he did not refuse to do any work asked of him. It's one man's word against the other's, which is usually what leads to a lawsuit. Your analogy is only apt if Abraham refused to conform to expectations. If that car salesman sincerely believed that Hondas are superior and more ethical cars to drive, yet sold Fords to customers to the best of his ability, he should not be fired for holding an opinion. He should be fired for underperforming, or sabotaging his employer, no matter what his motive, but his opinion is his right. To give a non-hypothetical example: I worked for ten years for a domestic violence shelter. I held, and openly expressed, many strong opinions about domestic violence that were at sharp variance with the "party line." Nevertheless, I was considered a valuable employee (albeit a gadfly) because despite my views, I followed policies and procedures and served the clients to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, confidentiality issues probably prevent Mark Hahn and WHOI from discussing the situation in more detail. I know there is a whole other side to the story that we're not hearing. 680450@blogcritics.org Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:13:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680441 Good writeup, Inanna. Interesting case. From what you've included here, I think the issue boils down to Hahn's statement: "You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work..." Assuming that is an accurate statement... If a scientist refuses to publish research and discuss it in the context of a theory upon which research at the institute is conducted, that is grounds for dismissal. That part of the story is cut and dried. Take an analogous example: Fred is a car salesman for Ford. He is also an environmentalist. He persuades customers to go shop at Honda, instead of pushing Fords. He would be fired. It would be disingenuous of Fred to claim that he was fired for his philosophical beliefs. It does come down to funding at WHOI. It's a publish or perish world, and if Abraham won't publish in a manner that highlights the full relevance of the work to modern scientific theories, he can be replaced. The religious philosophy is not the reason for the dismissal, it's the refusal to follow through. Whether or not he was ridiculed or cajoled or shunned by his peers and supervisors gets into different (and uglier) issues. That's all workplace relations and politics. Everyone suffers in one way or another. Womanizers, bigots, drinkers, Republicans, Mormons, nerds, sluts, bad dressers, Democrats, atheists, slobs, fashion plates, the overweight, the vain, illiterates, snobs, the overly sensitive, the brash --- all the crap by which people are judged --- lives in the workplace, everywhere, all the time. Being disliked and/or marginalized at the personal level is not grounds for being fired, but that seems not to be the case here. 680441@blogcritics.org Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:39:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/15/132451.php#comment-680436 Thanks for writing and publishing this. I have to say that I am a Christian but not a fundamentalist. I respect the study of science and it complements my world-view. I have run across vehement fundamental scientists (usually professed atheists) and they have less ground in fact than most cults who knock on my doors. Thanks again for the article. 680436@blogcritics.org Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:07:01 EST