Thanks to a blogger, yet another unqualified Bush appointee has resigned. This time it was George Deutsch of NASA’s public affairs department, who was part of the reported campaign to silence the agency’s top climate specialist from speaking out about the problem. The NASA employee stepped down after a blogger discovered that the 24-year-old did not graduate from Texas A&M, as his resume said. He didn’t graduate from college at all. But as The New York Times editorial board points out:
“The shocker was not NASA’s failure to vet Mr. Deutsch’s credentials, but that this young politico with no qualifications was able to impose his ideology on other agency employees. At one point, he told a Web designer to add the word ‘theory’ after every mention of the Big Bang.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
27 Comments
Now somebody needs to look into the head of NASA and of the Langley Research Center. Talk about village idiots!
When the government feels it needs to stifle science people should be worried.
That’s what it is Melissa. The Big Bang THEORY.The title of the NYT article is “Censoring Truth”. I don’t get it. Was the NYT trying to infer that by insisting on calling the Big Bang a theory (which it is), that is evidence of bias against science? Or are they too busy worshiping science to understand what a theory is?
Yes Outlander, we wouldnt want to give science any credibility. Far better to worship superstition and fairy tales. People are so hard to control when they have access to science… and facts…and empirical knowledge. They are much easier to manipulate when they are fed fiction and wishful thinking dressed as the truth. I guess people at NASA dont have anything better to do than bird dog the BIG BANG THEORY, lest anyone think there is more than the official outlander/hank/nathan/jesus explanation.
I see nothing has changed here on the “all god all the time” channel. Maybe the WE editors just put stupid words in outlander’s mouth just to get the blog entries up. I am amazed that every issue ends up being a debate on christian THEORY.
Outlander,
The problem was actually that John Deutsch was too busy kissing Bush’s ass to know that the scientific understanding of theory. Here’s a definition:
“What gives a theory its power is not the declarative statements it consists of but rather the relationship among those statements. It is the form of the relationship among statements rather than the individual statements themesleves that distinguish between theory and description.”
By the time something gets to being called a theory, it does two things: a) provides a most plausible explanation for a specific phenomena; b) meshes with the other theories and laws that make up the body of the scientific representation of nature.
Theories aren’t a starting point. Theories are the outcome of a massive and sustained process of proof and justification. So when a punk-ass shill like John Deutsch insists on labelling politically unfavored scientific observations as ‘theories’, he’s depending on a misrepresentation of what actually constitutes a theory.
Good to see your return, ksfarmgrrl. Hope things are going well for you, at least as well as can be expected.
I think part of the problem with this never-ending argument is that science has not done a good job of educating non-scientists concerning what its all about, what a theory is, etc. If that were changed, perhaps that would help.
One of the above sentences reminded me of a recently spotted bumper sticker:
“What if the hokey pokey is ‘what it’s all about’”
kfg: Who said anything about Christian theory? It sounds like you think that everyone should just accept the state of science as it is and call all theories absolutes. I don’t think many scientists would agree with that.
BTW, welcome back, warped logic and all!
No Outandoutliar, you’re engaging in a straw man (distort the position and attack the distortion).
No one said “theories are absolutes.” What they implied or said is that theories are the best explanation of natural events AT PRESENT.
But that means you can’t dismiss them out of hand, like the fundamentalists and conservatives do, unless you have an equally compelling counter-theory.
That’s what YOU don’t have.
ProudLib. Sorry to cut off the grand debate, but all I said was that calling a spade a spade or a theory a theory is not sinister. If anyone set up a straw man it was the NYT, followed by ksfarmgirl.
Farm Gal,Welcome back! My condolences for your loss.
Out,I don’t consider anything “absolute,” least of all, christianity. Science is simply the best information we have at the moment. There is a process that is necessary for a hypothesis to become a theory. Christianity hasn’t even made hypothesis yet.
See this web page that describes the content of Thomas Kuhn’s book _The Structure of Scientic Revolutions_ for an idea about how science goes about its work and how theories evolve.http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
Sometimes the evolution of paradigms is a painful process for science. No theory is able to confront all of the empirical challenges facing it, but those that can account for the greatest number of questions survive the longest. Darwin’s theory has withstood the test of time and empirical challenge for approximatley 150 years. It must be doing something right.
ID is a classic straw man and in no legitimate sense challenges evolution. Sorry.
Outlander, the belief that christ lived and was the son of god is no more than a theory either.That is why I said christian theory. You seem to want to govern the world with that theory. You seem to want the US to be controlled by that THEORYOCRACY. Will you label all christian theory as such?
Why do you choose to believe some theories and not others? Why is everything that doesnt square with your fairy tale a theory, when the fairy tale itself is no more than a theory?
If just labeling something a theory makes you happy, lets label religion for what it is too, and put your beliefs in the relm of theory where they belong. Will you foot note all your theory comments from now on?
He added the word “theory” to conflate the popular meaning of the word with the scientific one or as the NYT says “to impose his ideology on other agency employees.”
He knows it, you know it, the NYT knows it. Stop playing naive.
But this is the pattern of the Bush administration–put people in positions of power based on WHO THEY SUPPORT rather than what they know.
That’s how we got into Iraq, that’s why 9-11 happened while Bush Co. concerned themselves with “missile defense,” why tax cuts haven’t worked to do anything except help the rich and grow the national debt, why Katrina relief was FUBAR.
It’s all a pattern . . . BushCo would rather their appointees be “ideologically pure” (like old time Communists) than competent–”red” instead of “expert.”
And we and the whole world are paying the price for it.
Thanks for the welcome back and the kind thoughts.
Outlander,How about discussing the other censoring. Global warming?
Just a question for the people who are going to argue global warming is a trend.
Plants found studying the glaciers melting have been carbon dated at 5000 to 6000 years.
So, if it’s that long since the last time they were thawed, what trend are we following?
What reasons would anyone have of not wanting this information to be freely discussed?
Sum1,What would your guess be? Pink Floyd expresses my speculation:
Money, get away.Get a good job with good pay and you’re okay.Money, it’s a gas.Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.New car, caviar, four star daydream,Think I’ll buy me a football team.
Money, get back.I’m all right jack keep your hands off of my stack.Money, it’s a hit.Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.
Just what did the NYT do that is such a negative thing.
Is it better to follow Times example and withold information about the Valerie Plame case until a year after the election to not give the president unfavorable press?What about the double standard of “it’s no one’s business” who informed the press on Valerie Plame, but lets gather a posse to find who outed an illegal wiretapping operation to the public?
CF: I’m having trouble with this “liberal speak”. Help me out here, please.Am I to understand that because George Deutsch (whoever he is) insisted on calling a theory a theory; that he was misleading, because everyone is too stupid to know what a theory really is, and therefore he is just trashing science?ksfarmgirl:
“Why do you choose to believe some theories and not others?”
I know that you’ve been out for a while, but do you really want me to answer that silly question?
And yes, I admit it. I have been to church this morning. It is interesting to me how much everyone here wants to debate Christianity. Not that I don’t want to discuss my faith, but I had not brought it up once on this thread, yet I’m getting it from all sides. I guess I should expect this on Sunday?
ProudLib, you have managed to tie calling the Big Bang theory a “theory” to the broader issues of the war in Iraq, 9-11, and Katrina. Just a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? But you’re right, in the sense that it doesn’t sound like a very good hire.
And now Sum1 wants to debate global warming.
One thing we don’t lack around here is variety!
Yes, Outie, it fits the pattern of BushCo making “truth” whatever they want it to be.
Outlander,
Like Deutsch didn’t call Evolution a ‘theory’ in order to emphasize it as ‘unproven’ and to dismiss it as ‘unproven,’ as opposed to emphasizing its ‘extensively tested,’ ‘comprehensive,’ and ‘integrated’ character.
BTW, I agree that your attendance / non-attendance at church/synagogue/mosque/ashram/sycamore tree really does deserve to be a non-issue. But as long as we have folks assuming that liberal=athiest, it’ll continue.
Ks,”The belief that Christ lived… is no more than a theory.”Nope. There is simply too much historical evidence that cites that he did indeed exist. It’s not just Judeo-Christian New Testament texts that give account of his existence. Pagan apologists who sought to defend their religions from the then considered, bastard sect of Judaism that became the Christian movement of the first century, based their arguments against Christ’s teachings while fully acknowledging the existence (birth to death) of JC. Even the Romans of the first century regarded the Jews and Christians as a political threat to the sovereignty of Caesar (they did not pay homage to the numerous statues of Caesar like ordinary Roman citizens at the time) interpretted their failure to pay homage as an outright rebellious act of defiance. The Roman government at the time sent spies among the Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, every Christian group in the empire was infiltrated by Roman spies to determine if they were indeed plotting rebellion. These accounts are documented and preserved in the Vatican vaults to this very day, which still bears the broken seals of the Roman regents in charge of carrying out the operations. As a result, many spurious rumors were spread by the infiltrators (like cannibalism) and reported to their superior officers. The Romans charged Christians with plotting rebellion and inciting hatred toward Caesar and the Roman senate, which led to their inevitable and now infamous persecutions and being “torn by wild beasts” and “fed to lions”. Now, if the pagan Roman officials wanted to disprove this much hated Christianity, they would have simply denied and tried to prove the non-existence of Christ. However, having crucified Christ so recently and supported by the memoirs of Pontius Pilate’s scribes, trying to deny the life and death of Jesus Christ would be comparable to trying to deny the events of 9/11 of recent history. As for his resurrection and virgin birth, that entails faith. However, JC has indeed fulfilled OT prophecy of the messiah, and Jewish historians also record JCs existence. Jews for the most part being disinterested non-proponents of Christianity do not dispute the existence of Christ. (phew!) In conclusion, JCs existence is not theory in any sense of the word, because it is well-documented historical fact. (Documented by disinterested parties, I must stress, not just by Christian Gospel writers or evangelists.)
“I don’t consider anything “absolute,” least of all, christianity. Science is simply the best information we have at the moment. There is a process that is necessary for a hypothesis to become a theory. Christianity hasn’t even made hypothesis yet.”
Jed: You can’t measure or define the spiritual in scientific terms. That does not make it any less real, or less important in people’s lives.
So, even a flagship scientific outfit such as NASA is required to employ political officer? Wow, we’re back in the USSR! Za Stalina!
Now as usual the bushies are spinning out of the true story here. Bad thing is…..YOU ARE LETTING THEM!!!!
It does not much matter that Deutsch put a modifying moniker on Big Bang science! What matters is that the man was totally and COMPLETELY unqualified for the job bush put him in, that he spewed and espoused bush dogma and that he is now exposed.
YOu know…..Like Brown, Chertoff, Wolfowitz, Miers, etc.
Go backto the start of the blog……
A young unqualified politico was put in charge of public affairs at NASA!
Defend THAT bushies!
According to the press reports,
“In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”
It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.” ” (http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/ZNYT02/602040433)
Anyone arguing that Deutsch wasn’t religiously motivated is lying. Or ignorant.
Outlander,While you acknowledge somewhat this topic is about Global warning you dont’ discuss it at all.
Is this because you only have information on the big bang theory or that you only want to discuss religious issues?
Whatever your sticking points it still comes down to is this the US, or USSR/China or any other third world country that all information has to be approved by the white house before the public can be told?
Why did no one want to discuss the differences between the Valerie Plame reporters and the NYT’s?
Santa Clause is a fact because my parents and everyoe else said so. Same with Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, The virgin birth and resurrection of Christ.Are all these fact,theory or DAMM LIES?