Eugenie Scott is just a zillion degrees of awesomesauce concentrated in one human being.

But Berman says ICR was the inspiration for the bill because he feels creationism is as scientific as evolution and should be granted equal weight in the educational community.

too bad for him science isn’t based on opinions and how you feel about facts you don’t like.

Berman is pretty widely recognised to be both an idiot and an asshole, even in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the Lege. He is also the sole sponsor of the bill, and has a reputation for coming up with stupid shit.

I’m not saying that the Lege doesn’t do stupid shit—they are in fact about to pass stupid shit regarding voter ID. I am, however, saying that it is likely that this shit is even too stupid for them.

And that’s saying a lot.

Just…

just…

asdlkfjwoien

No.  You simply cannot redefine “science” to mean “na na na na boo boo”.  If you want a Master of Science degree, you need to study science as defined by scientists.

If that bill passed, a Master of Science Degree from Texas would be worthless.

I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago

I’ll take it.  It’s sure as hell a step up from coming from dirt and a bone, but hey, we can’t all have standards that low.

They already have that.  It’s called a master’s degree in theology.

I’m not sure this is all that important.  The point about this making Master of Science degrees in Texas worthless because of their association with this idiocy is well taken.  However, what kind of credentials can a person with this degree obtain?  What kind of accredidation can this school possibly have?  Idiots will always be willing to give their money to other idiots.  Maybe, if we’re lucky, we can relegate this to an economy of idiots.

So glad not to live in Texas anymore.  Austin was nice, but it is surrounded by the rest of the state.  Although, if I lose my job I can always move back and start a diploma mill ...

I’m OK with people getting degrees in it so long as you call it something other than science.  Like say, theology.  Theology is a perfectly legitimate field in which to get all sorts of degrees based on topics like whether God made the world.  There are a lot of places you can work with a theology degree that will wholly support your view of creation, they’ll even put you in charge of their department for the advancement of creationism.  You can make good money at it.

Leave science to the, ya know, scientists.

Hmm?  I was under the impression that academic certification was a private function in the States - you could award Masters in Creationism, Phrenology or Whateverthehellyoulikeism, but without no credible certification agency would back them up.

well, he does have an argument- or at least a point for discussion- in “If you don’t take federal or state funds, what business do we have trying to regulate you”-

and the counterpoint would be: because you are doing fraudulent and stupid things.

It’s called a master’s degree in theology.

Ah, yes. A degree in things made up without content.

I get so pissed off at a relative complaining about her “dissertation” in “ministry” at some “school” made up by a spiritual charlatan when she tries to compare it to the actual research I’ve had to do. How fucking hard is it to do “research” on something completely contentless like “God”?

It seems that Rep. Berman doesn’t understand what the “science” part of Master of Science means.

I was under the impression that academic certification was a private function in the States - you could award Masters in Creationism, Phrenology or Whateverthehellyoulikeism, but without no credible certification agency would back them up.

Generally, yes. My guess this is more about allowing these yahoos to apply for state jobs that require a state-recognised M.S. degree—especially in academic positions. From the article, it seems that they can’t.

I have a course Rep. Berman should take: “Your ass from a hole in the ground, a comparative study”.

Hey, I believe the Earth orbits the Sun.  Why can’t I have my beliefs respected and put into law by the Texas legislature (aside from not living there)?  Any idiot can see the Truth for themselves.  It’s so obvious the Earth is fixed in its position, while crystal spheres carrying all the stars and planets move around…

BTW, time has four dimensions too…

If this passes I’m pulling out my old Miskatonic University diplomas and putting them on my CV, then applying for a teaching position in Medieval Alchemy and Occult Studies from a University in Texas.

tannenburg, what do you want to bet that if this passes, the next one limits such degrees to only good and godly subjects. Creation Science, sure, but Occult Studies? That’s just wrong!

Pam, that’s not “flat-earth BS,” it’s a flat-earth MS. Or perhaps a BS MS, meaning an MS in BS.

Not too familiar with how far Texas politics can go toward the dogmatic, self-defeating end of things, but I think Caren makes the crucial point here. If granting a certificate of authority to this institution calls the standards of the Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board into question (as it should), there will be economic consequences for anyone who gets a degree from an institution certified by that body. I would imagine that this would be a political no-no for most members of the Texas legislature (in my state they get around that by turning it into a statewide proposition, since it’s not nearly as difficult to get a majority of non-politicians to vote against their own self interests).

As for the argument that, “if you don’t take federal or state funds, what business do we have trying to regulate you,” um, first, we regulate all sorts of private industry for the sake of the public good (hello, health and safety codes?). Second, this is not some form of involuntary regulation. This is a certification that they are not required to get in order to operate their business, but that they want the state to grant to them in order to increase the value of their product. The school is asking to be regulated. It’s just also asking to be excused from any standards normally applied by that regulating body.

“Pam, that’s not “flat-earth BS,” it’s a flat-earth MS. Or perhaps a BS MS, meaning an MS in BS. “

Rim shot.

And I’m with tannenburg.  Big Bang “theory’ is obviously wrong, since it posits the Universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago.  How is that possible when Cthulhu has slept for VIGINTILLIONS of years?  We’re talking about what, 60 orders of magnitude wrong?  Pshh.

Occult Studies 101: Non-Euclidian Geometry and Astrological Alignment.  Prerequisites: English 101, Cthuhlu F’tagn 101, Certificate from Psychologist or Psychotherapist. 4 credits (if student survives.)  2 Midterms, Final, Term Paper, Field Exercise.  Bring signed waiver of liability to first class session.

“I don’t believe I came from a salamander that crawled out of a swamp millions of years ago,” Berman told FOXNews.com. “I do believe in creationism. I do believe there are gaps in evolution.

Yo.  “Science.”  You’re doing it wrong.

How in Dog’s name can you get a Master’s Degree in “God did it?”  That’s pretty much all there is to creationism—God said Abracadabra-Ala-Kazam, and “poof,” there were all the plants and animals that populate the earth.  There’s not even much there for a degree in “theology,” unless he plans to write his thesis on Jesus’ dinosaur training methods.

“That’s pretty much all there is to creationism—God said Abracadabra-Ala-Kazam, and “poof,” there were all the plants and animals that populate the earth.”

Well, according to Abdul ‘The Mad Arab’ Alhazred’s Necronomicon, you’re wrong…

MAJeff, the God of Biscuits on 03/19 at 04:11 PM:

Quite simple, really.  If you study people’s magic fairy beliefs and their rationalizations for same for a sufficient length of time you are entitled to one of two degrees:
—if you don’t believe that nonsense then your degree is in anthropology;
—if you do believe that nonsense then your degree is in theology.

Joking aside, I’m with you.  There should be no such thing as a degree in theology or divinity or whatever unless approached as a scientific study of folk belief / history (etc.); no actual school should award them.  Let churches give degrees for study.

They’ll be giving Ph.D.s in WOW next.

Oh, and one final question.  If you’re going to be raptured, do you have to submit your Permission for Absence Note in advance?

Not that it’s exactly the same, but I have two colleagues who are doing dissertations on aspects of WoW. So I guess you could kinda say they are getting Ph.D.s in WoW studies. But not really.

My guess is that the bulk of the curriculum for this degree is learning arguments and uncovering “evidence” that “prove” evolution to be wrong and creationism to be right. Which is a very reactionary and limiting basis for a graduate degree. Most graduate programs are about expanding our pool of knowledge and/or finding ways to apply it productively to benefit a group or groups of people. I can’t imagine any way that a creationist curriculum would be anything other than a one-note endeavor. So it’s not just the content of the program that is inappropriate for an MS degree, it’s also the form. (And to be clear, I’m not suggesting that it should be a BS degree either, just noticing something else wrong with the program as currently proposed.)

There are already ads on TV here in Dallas for getting a Master’s degree in computer game design from SMU:

http://guildhall.smu.edu/Home.47.0.html

You should look on this as an opportunity.  If this actually somehow passes, start up a degree program in Discoballitarianism Science.

Oh, and I can easily believe that Berman came from something that crawled out of a swamp.  Or even that he himself did.

This sounds like a job for the Flying Spaghetti Monster! It seems Leo Berman has yet to be touched by His Noodley Appendage in order to receive the word. Arrrgh!

Generally, yes. My guess this is more about allowing these yahoos to apply for state jobs that require a state-recognised M.S. degree—especially in academic positions. From the article, it seems that they can’t.

Ah, that makes sense.  So it’s not a case of “escaping regulation” - they want their bullshit degrees recognised as qualifications by the State.

I can imagine they envision Gerald Schroeder teaching courses there?

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

Hmmm…so, would this degree require a Master’s thesis involving original research?  How would you design an experiment, I wonder?  (“I prayed over a rib and it turned into a woman”?)

OTOH, that would solve the problem of those MRAs who are thwarted in their efforts to bring mail-order brides into the country.  Why import them when you can grow your own?

Could be a Nobel Prize in it.

Why does belief in evolution make one an “elitist” as Berman is quoted in the article?

Hmmm…maybe I could adopt a positive stance on this. While I take the bus back to my dilapidated house to eat leftover pasta I will take comfort in the idea that I am one of the elite.

A degree in SCIENCE for CREATIONISM?  Um, oxymoron much?

You know, it’s nonsense like this that makes me wish Texas would just go the f**k ahead and secede already…wall off the stupid before it spreads out into the rest of the country.

The school is asking to be regulated. It’s just also asking to be excused from any standards normally applied by that regulating body.

This.

My guess is that the bulk of the curriculum for this degree is learning arguments and uncovering “evidence” that “prove” evolution to be wrong and creationism to be right.

Thing is, if they could find evidence that proves evolution wrong, they could get a PhD from a real school.

Real empirical evidence, testable and repeatable, that a God or God-like being(s) made us?  Einstein would pale in comparison.

But there’s no possible science involved in this degree; rhetoric, yes, but science?  Not as anyone else defines it.

wall off the stupid before it spreads out into the rest of the country.

no shit.  They already fuck up the school books for the nation.  My kid’s history book told him that the Pledge meant that this country was led by God.

It was a teaching moment for us, but holy fuck.  What about the kids whose parents just assume a history book is teaching facts and not Christian revisionism?

I agree, I don’t think science is actually involved. It’s more like getting a degree in learning to debate one side of an argument. “I went to debate camp, and all I got was this stupid MS.”

Possibly they learn how to go on expeditions and discover footprints near dinosaur remains and make silly conclusions about it. Or lab test the compatibility of bananas to human consumption. (if you don’t get that reference, you must find the Kirk Cameron creationist banana clip online somewhere)

Evolutionary biologists, however, having already proved the fundamental premise of their discipline quite a long time ago, are freed up to actually do things like experimentation, field research, etc. They expand their field, rather than needing to circle around and around and around the same argument again and again.

Am starting to imagine what it would be like to be stuck in “creationism” as an academic discipline. It’s so restrictive, it makes my head hurt.

Want to make this guy’s head explode? Point out that accreditation bodies for higher education are often private organizations, sometimes even for-profit companies, and that his bill would be imposing government regulation on them by forcing them to accredit crazy-ass institutions, eventually causing them to go out of business. OK, probably wouldn’t do the trick.

I bet the diploma-mill operators are salivating over this one—it’s typically easy to look and see whether someone’s degree has been issued by an accredited university, and this would get them a state stamp of approval as well. (And the non-profit part is no bar to their activities; they can either be legitimately nonprofit by having appropriately high expenses to match their income, or they can require their clients to purchase items from for-profit offshoots…)

A degree in SCIENCE for CREATIONISM?  Um, oxymoron much?

no.

“Why People Believe: A psychological profile of a statistical sampling of self-described ‘Creation Scientists’ profiles of their beliefs, and analysis of the origins of the rise of the biblical literalist dogma”

Psychology is a science.

“Am starting to imagine what it would be like to be stuck in “creationism” as an academic discipline. It’s so restrictive, it makes my head hurt. “

Well the creationists have a simple solution to the problem of head hurting. Don’t use the brain use the buybull.

There should be no such thing as a degree in theology or divinity or whatever unless approached as a scientific study of folk belief / history (etc.); no actual school should award them.  Let churches give degrees for study.

OK, I’m sorry, I just can’t keep my mouth shut on this one.  This is pretty far up there on my list of the most ridiculous bullshit I’ve ever heard. 

Universities (real live universities like the one MAJeff is about to get his PhD from!) have theology departments.  Where people actually do real research on various matters relating to religion.  Which, whether the god(s) it centers on are really real or not, is a cultural and philosophical concept that really exists.  I’d agree that theology ultimately is a discipline that comes under some branch of the humanities like philosophy or something, but if we decided to declare disciplines illegal because they were ultimately reducible to other disciplines, the only academics who’d be safe would be physicists.  If we declared illegal all disciplines that “don’t really study real things which are factually proven to be 100% true”, we’d end up shutting down most universities on the planet, aside from a few departments at Land Grant schools.

BTW, quite a few somewhat independent church-connected schools award theology degrees (real life theology degrees, not Bible College “degrees” or whatever those places award) exist.  They’re usually called seminaries, and there are some extremely prestigious and academically rigorous ones out there.  And they have analogues in just about every other religion, too.  Including Wicca.

Just FYI, I still think the larger story we’re talking about in this thread is bullshit.  Obviously you can’t just go around awarding accredited degrees in things like “Creationism”.  Well, not if you expect to stick around for very long and want your alumni to actually be able to get jobs.  But that has no bearing on whether theology is a legitimate academic area.

“My kid’s history book told him that the Pledge meant that this country was led by God.
“

Did you tell your kid and the people responible for the history book that the under god part was inserted in the pledge in the 1950s against the wishes of the pledge writer as reported by his grandchildren and great children?

Didn’t the salamander (a distant ancestor of modern salamanders, of course, as well as us) crawl out of the swamp tens or even hundreds of millions of years ago?  What a small, circumscribed world these people live in.

Incidentally, seeker, Majeff, I’m going to have to disagree with you.  Depending on how it’s taught, I would say that theology can be a perfectly legitimate social science.  Religious belief has motivated huge chunks of history; I’d say it’s worth studying.

Depending on how it’s taught, I would say that theology can be a perfectly legitimate social science

A social science??????  A humanities topic, perhaps, but a fucking science?

Oh, Texas—thanks for making Kentucky look slightly more reasonable.

I have a BA in religious studies. It is distinguished from theology by right of the fact that it teaches religion as an object of study, not a matter of belief or adherence. Unless something has changed drastically since my time as an undergrad, you will not find departments of theology at public universities, nor do theology departments at private universities receive public funding. There is no test of belief in religious studies departments, and it is not considered training for any form of ministry.

Religious studies sometimes takes the form of a social science of the field-research variety. Every once in a while it gets a bit “harder” by crunching opinion poll / self-report data. I am not familiar with any area of religious studies in which one can do experimentation (vs., say, psychology, which is a “harder” version of the soft sciences).

Am now feeling squicked by the “hard” vs. “soft” classification of sciences that I just used. Where’d that come from, I wonder.

A social science??????  A humanities topic, perhaps, but a fucking science?

Chill.  There’s no reason to escalate with me, and you know it.  One of two things is the case here:

1) My understanding of theology is correct, and theology is the study of religious belief systems, current and historical.  This would make it a subset of anthropology.

2) I’ve misunderstood, and theology is…something else.  I don’t see how you can study “God” without studying religious belief systems, unless it’s pure indoctrination in one faith’s dogma.

I mentioned “depending on how it’s taught”, in case it’s supposed to be option one, but it often becomes option two.

Ah.  Thank you for clearing that up, Dymphna.

A social science??????  A humanities topic, perhaps, but a fucking science?

For as much as, say, anthropology is considered a science, yes, because an M. Div. from a good university includes the study of ancient languages and Near-Eastern cultures. More than a few such degrees also include a pastoral counseling component which, depending on the legitimacy of the school, is based on secular principles with an added spiritual twist.

I suggest that Amanda create The University of The Mouse and The Disco Ball and award Berman with a Ph.D in Fucking Idiocy.

Unless something has changed drastically since my time as an undergrad, you will not find departments of theology at public universities, nor do theology departments at private universities receive public funding.

Perhaps not in the US, but Cambridge University has a Faculty of Divinity that has been around since the mid-13th century.  Oxford University has a Faculty of Theology that’s been around for roughly the same amount of time.  So it’s one of the earliest areas of formal study.

When the Texas Lege gets it their collective brain cell to do something, there’s really very little we can do about it.  Remember, this is the state that outlawed dildos but allowed “educational aids”, and so the Dildo Diaries was born.  (Molly Ivins.  ::sob::)

But, should the rest of you wall us off, remember the cities in Texas are blue, blue, blue—not just Austin but Dallas too and to a lesser extent San Antonio.  Don’t forget to evacuate us first.

We may suck but we did give y’all Johnson, LadyBird and the crazy guy she married who signed the Civil Rights Act, Ann Richards, Molly Ivins…(some) Texas men may be batshit insane but Texas women are fierce.

So basically he wants to make Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board accreditation completely worthless, huh?

“So it’s one of the earliest areas of formal study.
“

Only because the Church wanted to control the education of people so they had to give large sums of money and resources so the Universities put in the department to get that.

Also a theology or divinity back then was actually quite different in terms of what you learned verus a divinity or theology degree now.

“So basically he wants to make Texas’ Higher Education Coordinating Board accreditation completely worthless, huh? “

Why not since it’s just one part of the plan to make education worthless in this country since education is bad according to his buybull beliefs.

Texas is soooo funny!

Lets see Texas and other PureWingNut states make all the stupid mistakes.  Not only will it make the others realize how stupid they will look if they do the same, all the crazy idiots in the legislatures will out themselves as frothing fools at the same time when they want to dance the “mee toooo” dance.

It will save a bunch of others a lot of trouble if they just keep it up.

Creation Science, sure, but Occult Studies? That’s just wrong!

Hey, if you are really going to do an exorcism and do it right, you damn well know exactly what you are dealing with.

Look at what happened to Father Damian Karas!

Cambridge University has a Faculty of Divinity that has been around since the mid-13th century.  Oxford University has a Faculty of Theology that’s been around for roughly the same amount of time.  So it’s one of the earliest areas of formal study.

Only because the Church wanted to control the education of people so they had to give large sums of money and resources so the Universities put in the department to get that.

When Oxford and Cambridge were founded, theology was the only subject - all other disciplines were seen merely as subsets of theology. They were founded as explicitly religious institutions, because at the time all institutions were explicitly religious. It was the 13th century after all - all aspects of life were totally dominated by the church.

My point was merely that religion/theology/divinity are venerable subjects of academic study, not some fly-by-night, fundies-only, modern, anti-science load of bollocks.  Des Cartes, one of the leading lights of Western rationality, was a god-botherer.

MAJeff, it strikes me that “Ministry” would actually be the most social-sciencey of the religious fields of study, because it deals with research with respect to methods of ministering to parishoners and other such issues.

Theology would be more akin to a humanities field. But I don’t see you resenting the students complaining about their comp. lit. dissertations.

And, of course, most people in the sciences probably look down on you for complaining about what you have to do for your dissertation compared to what they had to go through, so get off your provincial high horse. Everyone’s Ph.D. experience is shitty. Save your resentment for the MBA students.

A social science??????  A humanities topic, perhaps, but a fucking science?

While we’re at it, it bears mentioning that if you field of study as “science” in the name, then it’s not science. Once again, get off your high horse.

I think this is the only case where someone can get an MS by simply pointing out (imaginary) flaws in a theory, and wrap it up with a false dichotomy fallacy.  I can point out several flaws with the theory of gravity.  It is only an attractive force (never repulsive), it acts instantaneously over any distance, and there is no known particle or energy that causes it (unless you count gravitons).  There, now I deserve a degree.  Oh wait, I have to throw in a logical fallacy for it to work.  If the theory of gravity is wrong, then it must be FSM making every object fall.  I have clearly proven that gravity doesn’t exist; now give me my degree in FSM-guided falling!

Catgirl - I refer you to:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Join the research team!

Orange: Pam, that’s not “flat-earth BS,” it’s a flat-earth MS. Or perhaps a BS MS, meaning an MS in BS.

MS is “more” of the BS. PhD is “piled higher and deeper”.

Aww, The Onion beat me to it.  Now I want an MS in evangelical physics.  Seriously though, there are as many flaws with the theory of gravity as there are with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I have clearly proven that gravity doesn’t exist; now give me my degree in FSM-guided falling!

I think one might expand that out to an entire field of Intelligent Physics!  I think I’ll do my Intelligent Physics dissertation on the Laws of Thermodynamics, featuring heat of hell and work of heaven.

Except that we already have well-worked explanations about whether Hell is exothermic or endothermic.

The thing is, in my “disproof” of gravity, I didn’t even bring up anything spiritual or religious.  All the things I mentioned are real, physical problems, but they don’t make me doubt the existence of gravity.  I could also bring up the problem of balloons floating or planes flying or the moon not falling onto us, and be in line with creationists.  All of these things have answers that I could just choose to ignore, just like the creationists do with transitional fossils or the second law of thermodynamics.

tannenburg: Bring signed waiver of liability to first class session.

Standard laboratory procedures:
- Don’t touch the summoning circle.
- When an artifact starts emitting light, close your eyes.
- When the experiment goes awry, stay away from the cult leader.

Captain Bathrobe: Why import them when you can grow your own?

I wonder, can you use any old rib or do you have to use your own? If the latter, a mail order bride might be less expensive and less painful for the MRA in question.

On a halfway serious note, my biggest problem with the disputes the Fundies have with Science is that the foundation of Science is eternal questioning and challenging - no theory is immutable, and yet some people demand absolute truths.  Therefore the Fundies can say “See! See! They aren’t sure, they aren’t sure, hee hee hee, Evolution isn’t true!”

Many people aren’t comfortable with uncertainty, so they gravitate (no pun intended) towards simple and unshakable explanations.  Is Evolution messy and kind of icky to think that your distant ancestor was a poop-throwing primate?  The Bible says God did it, problem solved, no uncertainty to worry about. 

Yet the individuals who adhere to these strict interpretations of God’s Word are constantly insecure, because if another explanation is out there they have this slight, almost whispering, worry that maybe their faith ISN’T the truth and they’re wrong…and nothing makes some people more insanely angry than their own doubts.

I’ve met a few people who are secure in their faith and they’re very serene and tolerant - smug, perhaps, that they are confident of their beliefs, but still not obnoxiously preachy.  Others, even the ones who state they’ve been saved and all they want to do is make sure that I am, too, since they like me and don’t want to see me spend eternity having coals stuffed in my nose or something in the eternal lake of fire, always strike me as paranoid that if anyone has a different opinion than they do it’s somehow a brutal and unbearable challenge to their entire Weltanschauung.

Enough.  Back to your regularly scheduled mockery of Texas and allusions to Cthuhlu.

Therefore the Fundies can say “See! See! They aren’t sure, they aren’t sure, hee hee hee, Evolution isn’t true!”

Yeah, the fundies love their logical fallacies.  They fail to realize that even if evolution were proven to be false, that still doesn’t say anything about the validity of creationism.  This is exactly why I hate the idea of and MS degree that relies completely on a false dichotomy.

Hm, seems my reply to MA Jeff was eaten. Anyone from Miskatonic U willing to venture a guess which entity did it?

Anyway, theology degrees. IME, much like literature degrees, only with ancient languages and more primary and secondary sources. You learn the languages (Greek and Hebrew—it is expected that you’re a fluent reader of Latin before you apply), dig through two or four thousand years of writings, do a critical reading and make your points based on it.

If you think Harry Potter fandom insane and Tolkien fandom mindbending, you will have much more fun with science than with theology.

I see no problem with Texas sanctioning either “Master of Creation” or “Masters in Occult/Religious Science” degrees for Creationists. Masters of Science would be misleading even under the most expansive definition of Science as knowledge or study.

How about Master of the Universe?  Dungeon Master?

Then there is the Creationist Public Health Degree, the MHOD, or Master of His/Her Own Domain.  This one is specifically for abstinence only educators.

Katherine, you are correct. I should have been more clear about what academic system I was talking about. The distinction between religious studies and theology at public universities in the US comes out of a specific supreme court ruling (I think from the 60’s), so it would be US-specific.

Am so not getting in to the “social sciences aren’t science” debate. It’s a tired old rivalry that has more to do with money than you might think. What matters is what’s useful and what works, as far as I’m concerned. A lot of social science is useful and works. Some isn’t so much. A lot of social science is rigorous and adheres well to scientific method. Some not so much.

I want to go preach at Berman’s church. I’ve been a real minister for decades, according to the Universal Life Church, and the best I can tell, they are every bit as reliable as any other theologians. I would have had my sermon talk about how dishonest and delusional creationism was, but I think Berman wants to be lied to, as he lies to us.

I was perusing a frugality blog I just stumbled across, and the owner had her homeschooling curriculum posted. All of the science textbooks came from Apologia. Creation Science textbooks. She seems like a smart, well-read person…but then she teaches her kids this crap?

Gah.

[I]f we decided to declare disciplines illegal because they were ultimately reducible to other disciplines, the only academics who’d be safe would be physicists.

Mathematicians.  Physicists are not safe.  Of course, much of mathematics can be reduced to wankery, but it’s pretty wankery.

A social science??????  A humanities topic, perhaps, but a fucking science?

Though I am not sure about other “social sciences”, from what I gathered from friends doing their PhDs in poli-sci and my own experiences taking such classes and doing the readings….I understand very well why the term “political science” sends most of those poli-sci Phd friends ROTFLOL.* 

Their feeling that rational-choice theory has been overemphasized and misused at times in that field only adds to their feeling that their field is attempting to overcompensate for not being “scientific enough”....especially when their overuse of quantitative models ends up severely oversimplifying complex socio-political phenomena.  The way they described it through chatting with me and showing me some examples was eerily similar to criticisms I’ve heard about how Robert McNamara relied too heavily on oversimplifying quantitative modeling when attempting to determine policies with disastrous consequences. 

* Incidentally, there are a few colleges where such departments leave out the term “science” in their name….using alternative monikers like “Government” and “Politics”. 

While we’re at it, it bears mentioning that if you field of study as “science” in the name, then it’s not science. Once again, get off your high horse.

Tyro,

What do you think of “Computer Science”, then?

“What do you think of “Computer Science”, then?”

I know you’re snarking, but Computer Science (which I have a BS in), is really for the most part a branch of mathematics, but applied, so it’s more like engineering.  It was always interesting to me that there was all kinds of theoretical work done many years before there were actual computers with which to test the theories…

How about Master of the Universe?  Dungeon Master?

I see no problem with Texas sanctioning colleges to grant their graduates the titles “He-Man” or “She-Ra, as evidence of their Transformative educational achievement. But no Texas institution should be able to name their graduates “Ninja Turtles,” or “Power Rangers.”

While we’re at it, it bears mentioning that if you field of study as “science” in the name, then it’s not science.

What has this to do with me?

I know you’re snarking, but Computer Science (which I have a BS in), is really for the most part a branch of mathematics, but applied, so it’s more like engineering.  It was always interesting to me that there was all kinds of theoretical work done many years before there were actual computers with which to test the theories…

Was partially being snarky because I hung out with/worked with many CS majors who would see the “science” comment by Tyro as reminiscent of snarks from bonafide engineering/natural science majors that what they were doing was not “real science”.  Recalled one physics/engineering graduate acquaintance in particular dismissively regarding the field of CS as “the sciences equivalent of an undeclared liberal arts major”. 

Also know several Material Sciences graduates from MIT who may not appreciate the implications of that “sciences” comment. 

“and the owner had her homeschooling curriculum posted. All of the science textbooks came from Apologia. Creation Science textbooks. She seems like a smart, well-read person…but then she teaches her kids this crap?

Gah.

“

Odds are she never spent a single moment trying to fact check any of them. Contact the owner if you feel like it and ask if she has ever checked out the contents. A lot of people don’t care to check out the things they buy for their kids wheter it be music, video games, graphic novels. They think it’s meant for kids or supposed to be only enjoyed for kids their cannot be anything wrong in it.

My point was merely that religion/theology/divinity are venerable subjects of academic study, not some fly-by-night, fundies-only, modern, anti-science load of bollocks.  Des Cartes, one of the leading lights of Western rationality, was a god-botherer.
Katherine on 03/20 at 09:02 AM

It was also very unhealthy not to be, unless you had aspirations to be a charcoal briquet.

Hey, exholt, I’m at peace with “Computer Science” falling under the “if you have to say it’s a science….” rule.

Also know several Material Sciences graduates from MIT who may not appreciate the implications of that “sciences” comment.

Well, I am pretty sure that department is part of the school of engineering.

While we’re at it, it bears mentioning that if you field of study as “science” in the name, then it’s not science. Once again, get off your high horse.

Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Engineers and the other collected egos who can’t form a cogent sentence do not get to denigrate anyone else’s field of study. It is my biggest peeve with academia, bar none: “hard” science snobbery.

I’m a historian, which means I know shit you couldn’t possibly hope to figure out, because if you can’t piece it together on an equation in a ledger, you can’t absorb that information. Anyone could feed any number into the equation. It involves reflection, and knowledge of the human condition, and yes, lack of certainty, which leads to competing theories. So there’s room for “wankery” in arguments about things like “Was Abraham Lincoln gay?” with evidence to be weighed in both directions. But that’s a fuckton more relevant than “How do Top Quarks behave?” Because as interesting as the-universe-.0000000002-seconds-after-the-big-bang might be as a subject, it is strictly academic. It is exploration and experimentation for their own sakes. Which is good, fun, and right, but not more worthy.

Yes, getting a PhD in physics is hard. Getting a PhD in ANYTHING is hard. and “my hardship is worse than your hardship, so your complaints are entirely without merit” does not mean that magically the historian or political scientist is well rested, relaxed, and finished any quicker. It is nothing but snobbery of false superiority. And getting the funding and completing an experiment in the biochem building isn’t really any easier than digging through thousands of volumes of birth records of German towns in the 12th century.

Science means knowledge. Which you would know if linguistics were a prerequisite in the hard science departments. If the scientific method is applicable, that is repeatability and falsifiability, it’s science.

Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a snob trying to make their lack of rounding to their curriculum a badge of honor instead of a sign of lack of human functionality.

Yes, getting a PhD in physics is hard. Getting a PhD in ANYTHING is hard. and “myhardship is worse than your hardship, so your complaints are entirely without merit” does not mean that magically the historian or political scientist is well rest, relaxed, and finished any quicker.

Perhaps, karpad, if you were as good a reader as you think you are, you would have looked at my comments in the context both my 9:04 am post and MAJeff’s 3/19 post at 4:11. But you didn’t. Maybe because you aren’t. Or because you’re procrastinating from thesis. Field snobbery is bullshit precisely because someone is just as capable of looking down at your field as you are at looking down at theirs.

Anyone who says otherwise is nothing but a snob trying to make their lack of rounding to their curriculum

You don’t want to pick that fight.