Top Professor receives Stand Down Order from BYU

[chipmunk stew]

Steven Jones has been placed on paid leave by BYU:
University officials informed Jones of the decision to place him on leave Thursday afternoon and released a statement to the newspaper Thursday night.

"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html

[gumboot]

Steven Jones has been placed on paid leave by BYU:

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html


He's clearly getting too close to the trooth.

-Andrew

[realitybites]

Steven Jones has been placed on paid leave by BYU:

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html
Paid leave.... How is that disciplinary in any way? I've never understood.

"You're an *****' nutjob, so we're gonna pay you to not work."

The only plus side is that he won't have contact with those young, impressionable minds at BYU.

[brodski]

Paid leave.... How is that disciplinary in any way? I've never understood.

"You're an *****' nutjob, so we're gonna pay you to not work."

The only plus side is that he won't have contact with those young, impressionable minds at BYU.

Well, paid leave is usually shorthand for, we'll pay you not to work until we ccan find a cheep way of getting rid of you.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, obviously the university as a private business can hire and fire as they choose, but I think this is just going to make a martyr out of him. Anyone smart enough to make it to university should (not "do") have the thinking skills to see through his bull, I don't agree with limiting the ideas which undergrads are exposed to. However this doesn’t mean that the university should have to pay him to spread his lies. Like I say, I'm unsure where I stand.

[pgwenthold]

Paid leave would be awesome!

I could get so much more of my work done if I didn't have these stupid university assignments (teaching, committees) getting in my way.

Place me on "leave" and all I will be able to do is to write papers and proposals. I only wish for the opportunity.

[Katana]

Well, paid leave is usually shorthand for, we'll pay you not to work until we ccan find a cheep way of getting rid of you.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, obviously the university as a private business can hire and fire as they choose, but I think this is just going to make a martyr out of him. Anyone smart enough to make it to university should (not "do") have the thinking skills to see through his bull, I don't agree with limiting the ideas which undergrads are exposed to. However this doesn’t mean that the university should have to pay him to spread his lies. Like I say, I'm unsure where I stand.
But, brodski, what if they're not lies? :scared:

[brodski]

But, brodski, what if they're not lies? :scared:

I have been assured by my Mi6 handlers that they are lies. ;)

[Katana]

I have been assured by my Mi6 handlers that they are lies. ;)

Phew! :D

[Dog Town]

No tenure,huh, interesting twist. Looks like a good year for the Truth!
I think Steven is going to have a few less friends.Let the scholars pay his research bills, see how long that lasts. Score one for the Mormons!

[Abbyas]

"BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues," the university statement said.

Well, THAT'S for sure.

[realitybites]

"BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues," the university statement said.
... Like having scientific papers published in scientific venues has anything to do with anything.... Pish-posh, I say.

[carlvs]

I guess even BYU couldn't stand the flawed science in his last effort (see democraticunderground [dot] com/discuss/duboard [dot] php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=109488&mesg_id=109488 for the sorted details - the fun begins at post #8 ...:D)

[Darth Rotor]

Steven Jones has been placed on paid leave by BYU:

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199800,00.html
It is completely appropriate for the University to censure or punish him, even replace him, if he cannot uphold high ethical and academic standards.

This isn't censorship, this is similar to firing a professor for plagiarism or faking the results of an experiment: he is embarassing the academic integrity of BYU.

DR

[Matthew Best]

"Continuing status," Jenkins said, "grants the expectation that faculty members will have continuing employment at the university, although it is not a guarantee. They still need to meet satisfactory performance levels for scholarship, citizenship and teaching."

I don't know about his teaching, but I think there are at least doubts about his scholarship and citizenship, don't you?

[Loss Leader]

Somehow, Jones is gonna spin this as though it's a badge of honor. He speaks the truth so clearly that even BYU had to fire him to help cover up the conspiracy, etc.

[Brainache]

Somehow, Jones is gonna spin this as though it's a badge of honor. He speaks the truth so clearly that even BYU had to fire him to help cover up the conspiracy, etc.


So it wasn't the Jooos it was the MORMONS!!11!!1!1!

[Arus808]

Watch jones now spin it (with Dylan and Fetzer) stating that the university was "pressured" by the guberment, to quite jones. ^_~

[Peephole]

Jones claims his paper has gone through two peer-reviews. But as far as I know, it was only peer-reviewed by Griffin, well at least Griffin claims it was.

Can anyone shed any light on what that second peer-review alledgedly is?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Jones claims his paper has gone through two peer-reviews. But as far as I know, it was only peer-reviewed by Griffin, well at least Griffin claims it was.

Can anyone shed any light on what that second peer-review alledgedly is?

I would guess ST911, which is, of course, not a peer reviewed journal in any academic or professional sense.

[Arus808]

I would ask that Jones submit his papers to the ASCE first before saying its been "peer- reviewed".

[Pardalis]

Maybe he asked this guy to read it.

http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/fs/food/food_facts/giveme5/pear.htm

[Abbyas]

http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/fs/food/fo...veme5/pear.htm
__________________

:D
Took me a couple of seconds.

[Pardalis]

Well, peer review is technically the evaluation of a work by other people in the same field. Jones' field is crazy paranoid conspiracism.

His "peers" read his stuff and said:" Yeah, that's grade "A" crazy paranoid conspiracy sh**. Nice work."

And he got his stamp of approval.

:D

[senorpogo]

Paid leave would be awesome!

I could get so much more of my work done if I didn't have these stupid university assignments (teaching, committees) getting in my way.

Place me on "leave" and all I will be able to do is to write papers and proposals. I only wish for the opportunity.

Start producing some crazy wacked out theories backed by poor, poor science and I'm sure your employers will oblige.

[R.Mackey]

This doesn't surprise me. I gave my thoughts on how to handle Steven Jones in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62774), and while I feel it's a grey area, Jones has been walking a fine line for years.

The most serious transgression is probably his "journal." I've worked with professors who've run conferences, published proceedings, even started journals in the past, and even where those are controversial, they don't usually irritate their University -- quite the opposite, a new journal is generally a point of honor and prestige. But one needs to do so properly.

It takes almost no investigation at all to see that his "journal" falls well short of the standards for peer review. All he would have had to do is bring some qualified professors into his review board, and make the process of submission, review, and revision transparent. Of course, had he done so, his "journal" might have been very short indeed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For that matter, how did Jones survive at BYU following his cold fusion scandal?

[T.A.M.]

so the gubmint got to dem profs at BYU, and now deh is discreditin da valid credentials of da bravist s-eye-entist ever to be born...dem damn gubimint devil worshippers.

;)

[Gravy]

It is completely appropriate for the University to censure or punish him, even replace him, if he cannot uphold high ethical and academic standards.

This isn't censorship, this is similar to firing a professor for plagiarism or faking the results of an experiment: he is embarassing the academic integrity of BYU.

DR
Agreed. He brings shame upon their house. Surprised he wasn't tenured, though.

[R.Mackey]

For that matter, how did Jones survive at BYU following his cold fusion scandal?
Cold Fusion embarrassed quite a few people. I haven't looked up Pons or Fleischman recently, but I imagine they suffered as a result. Jones was not a major player in the eyes of the public.

There's nothing wrong with researching wacky things (provided somebody will fund you to try). But you must always be prepared to disclose a negative result, be honest about your data and methods, and take criticism seriously. A good researcher will even raise his own doubts and ask others to not only replicate his work, but try to find alternate explanations.

This is not business as usual among the "Scholars for Truth."

[chipmunk stew]

Agreed. He brings shame upon their house. Surprised he wasn't tenured, though.
That's mainly because BYU doesn't tenure professors, according to the article:
BYU does not grant tenure, generally regarded as a permanent position, to professors. However, it does give continuing status to professors found worthy after six years on campus.

[chipmunk stew]

Cold Fusion embarrassed quite a few people. I haven't looked up Pons or Fleischman recently, but I imagine they suffered as a result. Jones was not a major player in the eyes of the public.

There's nothing wrong with researching wacky things (provided somebody will fund you to try). But you must always be prepared to disclose a negative result, be honest about your data and methods, and take criticism seriously. A good researcher will even raise his own doubts and ask others to not only replicate his work, but try to find alternate explanations.

This is not business as usual among the "Scholars for Truth."
Jones actually still talks up his cold fusion research, distancing himself from Pons and Fleischman, and insisting on calling it "metal-catalyzed" fusion.

[R.Mackey]

Jones actually still talks up his cold fusion research, distancing himself from Pons and Fleischman, and insisting on calling it "metal-catalyzed" fusion.
Yeah, I've read up on Jones. He's not the only one still chasing Palladium dreams, not by a long shot. And one never knows. I cannot categorically say that room-temperature fusion is impossible, even though it seems unlikely. I'm not at all against him continuing his pursuit.

However, Jones would be incorrect in stating that his results to date are anything other than negative. Even "inconclusive" is a stretch.

[chipmunk stew]

Yeah, I've read up on Jones. He's not the only one still chasing Palladium dreams, not by a long shot. And one never knows. I cannot categorically say that room-temperature fusion is impossible, even though it seems unlikely. I'm not at all against him continuing his pursuit.

However, Jones would be incorrect in stating that his results to date are anything other than negative. Even "inconclusive" is a stretch.
Yeah. And yet, if I'm not mistaken I've read him refer to them as "promising".

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As I've said before, BYU is wholly owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Every church employee, from the building manager at my local chapel to the dean of BYU are under a morality clause.

If Jones doesn't keep his spiritual I's dotted and T's crossed, he's out.

I think it will be interesting to see where Jones (who has always claimed to be a devout mormon) goes with this. My guess is he will either have to make some apology for some of his actions, or he will turf himself from the church. We believe the church to be guided by divine inspiration. IF these 9-11 theories are true, God is certainly aware of it and would not allow his church to become a tool of these modern day "Gadianton Robbers" (a band of of evil conspirators responsible for provoking a series of wars for thier own gain in the Book of Mormon).

If Jones accuses the church of bending over for the gadiantons, he is basically throwing out one of our foundational beliefs.

Either way, he won't be our problem anymore.

[bjb]

I came across a paper written by one of his studentswho was (mis)using the 2nd law of thermodynamics to show that WTC 7 could not have fallen because of fire alone! I think Jones has a right to free speech but BYU has the responsibility of making sure their professors aren't teaching their students to be crackpots.

[VespaGuy]

From the parallel thread over in the Loose Change Forums:

MJChicago
does he not have tenure?

FidelCastro
Nope, I believe he is non-tenure.

The article they are commenting on is quoted, in full, in the opening post of that thread. Here's the related paragraph. (emphasis mine)

BYU does not grant tenure, generally regarded as a permanent position, to professors. However, it does give continuing status to professors found worthy after six years on campus.

Do the loosers have poor reading skills or do they only understand something when it is presented in video format?

[jhunter1163]

I assume that he will soon "resign" from BYU to pursue "other endeavors".

Translation into plain English: "We'll pay you X dollars to quietly go away and spare us the embarrassment of explaining how it is you managed to stay on our faculty this long anyway."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The 9-11 deniers are going to go nuts over this:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Bush20and20Hinckley.jpg

This picture was taken a few days before Jones's recent vacation was announced. We all know who the gentleman on the right is. The small grey haired man is mormon Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. Just behind him and mostly obscured is his 1st councilor, Thomas S. Monson.

You just know what the deniers are going to assume. That the mormon church has knuckled under to the NWO.

Ironically, I first came here to defend my religion. To assure the sceptics that Jones doesn't represent us. Now the shoe is likely going to end up on the other foot. I'll get to defend my faith from a jihad declared by the truthseeker cult (http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/cult.htm)!

This should be amusing.

[brumsen]

The most serious transgression is probably his "journal."
I quite agree, but....

The 9-11 deniers are going to go nuts over this:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Bush20and20Hinckley.jpg

This picture was taken a few days before Jones's recent vacation was announced.
... shouldn't we be worried about this coincidence nonetheless?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I quite agree, but....


... shouldn't we be worried about this coincidence nonetheless?

If the voices of the sponge demons that live inside your walls tell you to, then yes.

[brumsen]

Let's put it this way.
How likely is it that they have not spoken about Steven Jones at all?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Quite likely.

[CptColumbo]

The 9-11 deniers are going to go nuts over this:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Bush20and20Hinckley.jpg

This picture was taken a few days before Jones's recent vacation was announced. We all know who the gentleman on the right is. The small grey haired man is mormon Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. Just behind him and mostly obscured is his 1st councilor, Thomas S. Monson.

You just know what the deniers are going to assume. That the mormon church has knuckled under to the NWO.

Ironically, I first came here to defend my religion. To assure the sceptics that Jones doesn't represent us. Now the shoe is likely going to end up on the other foot. I'll get to defend my faith from a jihad declared by the truthseeker cult (http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/cult.htm)!

This should be amusing.

Yeah, that's a tough one. I mean how often does the President go to Utah? Try to find out the reason for the visit. That might help, but I doubt it. Also, try to find the number of time the Pres. has visited other religious leaders (The Pope for example).

[bjb]

Like any other piece of research, Steven Jones' work stands or falls on its own. Even if the president 'ordered' the Mormons to do something about Jones, that doesn't change the fact that his papers are worthless. They were worthless when he was in good standing at BYU and they're worthless now. In any case, we all know that George Bush takes orders from religious leaders, not the other way around.

[R.Mackey]

I quite agree, but....

... shouldn't we be worried about this coincidence nonetheless?
Worried how? I don't understand.

[Overman]

Paid leave.... How is that disciplinary in any way? I've never understood.

"You're an *****' nutjob, so we're gonna pay you to not work."

The only plus side is that he won't have contact with those young, impressionable minds at BYU.


I actually LOLed reading this.

Mormons are funny.

[brumsen]

Worried how? I don't understand.
While arguably Jones has provided good reason to put him on leave, it is nonetheless important to know what the actually operative reason was.

In other words: suppose Bush talked Hinckley into putting pressure on BYU regarding Jones, which then resulted in his being put on leave just before 9/11/06. He would most likely not have asked Hinckley to do so because of Jones' failing to live up to academic standards, and neither would Hinckley have pressured BYU for that reason.

While all this is hypothetical, it does show, IMHO, that we should want to know the operative reason for putting Jones on leave. Even if there are academic reasons for doing so, it may actually have been done by means of an assault on academic freedom.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

While arguably Jones has provided good reason to put him on leave, it is nonetheless important to know what the actually operative reason was.

In other words: suppose Bush talked Hinckley into putting pressure on BYU regarding Jones, which then resulted in his being put on leave just before 9/11/06. He would most likely not have asked Hinckley to do so because of Jones' failing to live up to academic standards, and neither would Hinckley have pressured BYU for that reason.

While all this is hypothetical, it does show, IMHO, that we should want to know the operative reason for putting Jones on leave. Even if there are academic reasons for doing so, it may actually have been done by means of an assault on academic freedom.

Releasing such information would most likely be a breach of contract for Jones or BYU and would impinge upon his privacy.

What is the source of the picture in question?

[brumsen]

Releasing such information would most likely be a breach of contract for Jones or BYU and would impinge upon his privacy.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
What I meant to say is that one reason can be given by BYU, and be upheld in appeal and all that....
while another reason, via Bush and Hinckley is actually operative.

That information will not be released, unless by someone present at that meeting (or a secretary of BYU's principal or whatever it's called coming out with stories about a phone call from Hinckley).

So we have no way of knowing, and I think there is reason to be somewhat worried, given that picture, and the timing of it all.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What is the source of the picture in question?

Official White House photograph, published in the Salt Lake Tribune. (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4271005#)

As for Brumsens speculation, if you have evidence that Jones was discussed, bring it.

[WildCat]

So we have no way of knowing, and I think there is reason to be somewhat worried, given that picture, and the timing of it all.
Oh yeah, be very worried. I guarantee you Bush is shaking in his shoes now that the TRUTH™ that Jones posseses is about to be blown wide open. So obviously the man who killed 3,000 people in the US to start his murderous war to steal oil and award contracts to friends called a meeting in the White House w/ Mormon leaders (who must also be in on this massive conspiracy) and ordered them to pay him not to go to work.

WTF kind of paranoid lunacy is this Brumsen? Jones now has more time to spout his nonsense to his adoring little mindless conspiracy nutters, and he's getting paid to boot!

A curious attempt at silencing someone, don't you think?

[brumsen]

As for Brumsens speculation, if you have evidence that Jones was discussed, bring it.
Of course it is speculation, and I've been saying that I've got no evidence.

The attitude that only that which can be supported by evidence is worth debating is something that I find rather tiresome. It all depends on what it is that one is debating.

A curious attempt at silencing someone, don't you think?
No, not really. Officially robbing him of his scholarly credentials will definitely convince plenty of fence-sitters not to listen to him.
(Now, there might be other reasons not to... but that's a different story)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

:confused: :confused: :confused:
What I meant to say is that one reason can be given by BYU, and be upheld in appeal and all that....
while another reason, via Bush and Hinckley is actually operative.

That information will not be released, unless by someone present at that meeting (or a secretary of BYU's principal or whatever it's called coming out with stories about a phone call from Hinckley).

So we have no way of knowing, and I think there is reason to be somewhat worried, given that picture, and the timing of it all.

So, you are making an assertion based upon something that you know is not falsifiable/confirmable. You do realize that makes it an unsubstantiated/uncorroboratable assertion, and therefore of no value.

[brumsen]

So, you are making an assertion based upon something that you know is not falsifiable/confirmable. You do realize that makes it an unsubstantiated/uncorroboratable assertion, and therefore of no value.
No. I think you misunderstand me.

I meant to say that even if we have no way of knowing which was the operative reason in putting Jones on leave, it would be a relevant piece of knowledge if it were available.

That is my assertion. And it is not the kind of assertion for which it even makes sense to support it with evidence.

My further thought was that the photograph provides us with a further incentive to come into possession of this piece of knowledge.
Sadly I have no idea how to proceed with that, though.

[Gravy]

Of course it is speculation, and I've been saying that I've got no evidence.
But we should be "worried."
Got it.
Moving threat level to orange.

[Triterope]

Officially robbing him of his scholarly credentials will definitely convince plenty of fence-sitters not to listen to him.

I disagree. Lack of scholarly credentials hasn't been an obstacle to other leading lights of the 9-11 Conspiracy crowd.

[WildCat]

http://home.wtal.de/infos/killers/gacycarter.jpg

Uh-oh Brunsen, this picture proves that Rosalyn Carter (and no doubt her hubby Jimmy) was in cahoots w/ serial killer John Wayne Gacy... CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, when you guys substitute speculation for evidence and mistake coincidence for causation you open yourselves up to a whole host of false pre-determined conclusions.

[Dog Town]

Of course it is speculation, and I've been saying that I've got no evidence.

So...you would like to just argue, about something, for the sake of arguing?
Very telling, indeed!

[brumsen]

Seriously, when you guys substitute speculation for evidence and mistake coincidence for causation you open yourselves up to a whole host of false pre-determined conclusions.
You just don't want to understand what I'm actually saying, do you? Must be too subtle.

[WildCat]

You just don't want to understand what I'm actually saying, do you? Must be too subtle.
I understand perfectly what you're trying to do. Jumping on every lunatic asshatted theory as if it's some serious intellectual inquiry because you have a fanatical hatred of the policies of the Bush admin.

It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. I think you misunderstand me.

I meant to say that even if we have no way of knowing which was the operative reason in putting Jones on leave, it would be a relevant piece of knowledge if it were available.

Not necessarily. You are assigning a value judgement to a piece of evidence that you have not even aquired. What if he was put on leave because of a sexual harrassment lawsuit? Would that be relevant? No. It would be of interest, but until we know if Schroedinger's cat is alive or dead, we can't assign value to it.


That is my assertion. And it is not the kind of assertion for which it even makes sense to support it with evidence.
That makes it speculation.


My further thought was that the photograph provides us with a further incentive to come into possession of this piece of knowledge.
Sadly I have no idea how to proceed with that, though.
Corralation <> causation.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, not really. Officially robbing him of his scholarly credentials will definitely convince plenty of fence-sitters not to listen to him.

Actually, I think this may lead to some rather telling behavior by the so-called scholars.

If he loses his academic credentials, he will either have to demote himself to associate member (putting him in the basement with all the mail-order PhDs) or the scholars will suddenly announce a change to thier membership rules or even declare a special exception for Jones.

Either way, it will be akin to announcing that they aren't really the "Scholars for Truth" as they are the "Steven Jones Fan Club".

[brumsen]

Not necessarily. You are assigning a value judgement to a piece of evidence that you have not even aquired. What if he was put on leave because of a sexual harrassment lawsuit? Would that be relevant? No. It would be of interest, but until we know if Schroedinger's cat is alive or dead, we can't assign value to it.
I'm sorry, but I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that the Jones affair is some kind of quantum superposition?:confused:
AFAIK, you're talking of a different kind of unknowable.

That is my assertion. And it is not the kind of assertion for which it even makes sense to support it with evidence.
That makes it speculation.
Nope. It's an analytic statement. Nothing to do with either speculation or evidence.

Corralation <> causation.
I know. But I don't see how that remark is relevant to what you quoted.

[brumsen]

If he loses his academic credentials, he will either have to demote himself to associate member (putting him in the basement with all the mail-order PhDs) or the scholars will suddenly announce a change to thier membership rules or even declare a special exception for Jones.

Nope:
Currently, Scholars for 9/11 Truth has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent; associate members (AM), who have backgrounds and interests relevant to 9/11 research;
(my bolding)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm sorry, but I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that the Jones affair is some kind of quantum superposition?:confused:
AFAIK, you're talking of a different kind of unknowable.

I'm saying, that until you know why Jones was put on leave you can't know if it is relevant.


Nope. It's an analytic statement. Nothing to do with either speculation or evidence.

I think you're being fast and loose with what an analytic proposition is

Kant's version and the a priori/a posteriori distinction
In the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant combines his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions with another distinction, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori propositions. He defines these terms as follows:

a priori proposition: a proposition whose justification does not rely upon experience
a posteriori proposition: a proposition whose justification does rely upon experience
Examples of a priori propositions include:

"All bachelors are unmarried."
"7 + 5 =12."
The justification of these propositions does not depend upon experience: one does not need to consult experience in order to determine whether all bachelors are unmarried, or whether 7 + 5 = 12. (Of course, as Kant would have granted, experience is required in order to obtain the concepts "bachelor," "unmarried," "7," "+," and so forth. However, the a priori / a posteriori distinction as employed by Kant here does not refer to the origins of the concepts, but to the justification of the propositions. Once we have the concepts, experience is no longer necessary.)

Examples of a posteriori propositions, on the other hand, include:

"All bachelors are happy."
"Tables exist."
Both of these propositions are a posteriori: any justification of them would require one to rely upon one's experience.

The analytic/synthetic distinction and the a priori/a posteriori distinction together yield four types of propositions:

1. analytic a priori

2. synthetic a priori

3. analytic a posteriori

4. synthetic a posteriori

[edit]
The ease of knowing analytic propositions
Part of Kant's argument in the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason involves arguing that there is no problem figuring out how knowledge of analytic propositions is possible. To know an analytic proposition, Kant argued, one need not consult experience. Instead, one need merely "extract from it, in accordance with the principle of contradiction, the required predicate..." (A7/B12) In analytic propositions, the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept. Thus in order to know that an analytic proposition is true, one need merely examine the concept of the subject. If one finds the predicate contained in the subject, the judgment is true.

Thus, for example, one need not consult experience in order to determine whether "All bachelors are unmarried" is true. One need merely examine the subject concept ("bachelors") and see if the predicate concept "unmarried" is contained in it. And in fact, it is: "unmarried" is part of the definition of "bachelor," and so is contained within it. Thus the proposition "All bachelors are unmarried" can be known to be true without consulting experience.

It follows from this, Kant argued, first: all analytic propositions are a priori; there are no a posteriori analytic propositions. It follows, second: there is no problem understanding how we can know analytic propositions. We can know them because we just need to consult our concepts in order to determine that they are true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_statement


I know. But I don't see how that remark is relevant to what you quoted.
Just because President Bush met with LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley around the time that Prof. Jones was put on leave does not mean that President Bush's meeting was in any why tied to Prof. Jones' situation. You're putting the cart before the horse.

[pgwenthold]

Official White House photograph, published in the Salt Lake Tribune. (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4271005#)


So wait a minute. The administration that secretly planned and executed an attack to kill 3000 citizens, and has kept those involved completely tight-lipped about the whole deal, goes to the head of the Mormon church to coerce him to silence a supposed researcher who is getting close to discover the plot, AND HAS AN OFFICIAL PHOTO TAKEN OF THE EVENT AND RELEASES IT TO THE MEDIA?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I understand perfectly what you're trying to do. Jumping on every lunatic asshatted theory as if it's some serious intellectual inquiry because you have a fanatical hatred of the policies of the Bush admin.

It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And he's slandering a major religion in the process.

But then the so-called "truth" seekers don't believe that religious bigotry exists. :p

[chipmunk stew]

So wait a minute. The administration that secretly planned and executed an attack to kill 3000 citizens, and has kept those involved completely tight-lipped about the whole deal, goes to the head of the Mormon church to coerce him to silence a supposed researcher who is getting close to discover the plot, AND HAS AN OFFICIAL PHOTO TAKEN OF THE EVENT AND RELEASES IT TO THE MEDIA?
He's...uhhhh....(!) thumbing his nose at the conspiracy theorists--it's a display of power. It says don't cross me, or I'll ruin your life. Just obvious enough to get the message across to those who know what's up--just subtle enough to fly under the radar of the MSM and its sheeple.


EWW, I got CT on me! Get it off, get it off!

[Alareth]

So wait a minute. The administration that secretly planned and executed an attack to kill 3000 citizens, and has kept those involved completely tight-lipped about the whole deal, goes to the head of the Mormon church to coerce him to silence a supposed researcher who is getting close to discover the plot, AND HAS AN OFFICIAL PHOTO TAKEN OF THE EVENT AND RELEASES IT TO THE MEDIA?

Don't you see? It's pure genius. It's that last thing you would expect!

Unless you aren't a raving lunatic hellbent on twisting the world to suit your own personal delusions.

[brumsen]

I think you're being fast and loose with what an analytic proposition is
I've had solid philosophical training, thank you. But would you mind elaborating on how I'm being fast and loose, exactly? Just giving a lengthy quote from wikipedia doesn't explain that.

Just because President Bush met with LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley around the time that Prof. Jones was put on leave does not mean that President Bush's meeting was in any why tied to Prof. Jones' situation. You're putting the cart before the horse.
I do not think that is quite fair.
The situation is that we have two pieces of potential evidence as to what the operative reason was:
1) BYU's statement
2) said photograph.

Now, you might argue that there is no reason at all to think that (2) would be a relevant piece of evidence at all. But now look at the BYU statement:
"Physics professor Steven Jones has made numerous statements about the collapse of the World Trade Center. BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty. We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones. Furthermore, BYU remains concerned that Dr. Jones' work on this topic has not been published in appropriate scientific venues. Owing to these issues, as well as others, the university has placed Dr. Jones on leave while we continue to review these matters."
(my bolding)

So is it so weird to suppose that Jones was accusing government officials, Bush got annoyed, and spoke about that with Hinckley?

So, no need to suppose all this:-
So wait a minute. The administration that secretly planned and executed an attack to kill 3000 citizens, and has kept those involved completely tight-lipped about the whole deal, goes to the head of the Mormon church to coerce him to silence a supposed researcher who is getting close to discover the plot, AND HAS AN OFFICIAL PHOTO TAKEN OF THE EVENT AND RELEASES IT TO THE MEDIA?
Bush could have got annoyed and exerted pressure regardless of what he has to do with 9/11.

[Gravy]

You just don't want to understand what I'm actually saying, do you? Must be too subtle.
Not this again. Brumsen, take a look at your posts and see how often, and how quickly, they degenerate into "You don't understand what I'm saying." Guess what? We understand what you're saying, Your English is impeccable. Your semantic games are deplorable.

While all this is hypothetical, it does show, IMHO, that we should want to know the operative reason for putting Jones on leave. Even if there are academic reasons for doing so, it may actually have been done by means of an assault on academic freedom.
"Okay, BYU, no more funny business. What's you're REAL reason for suspending Professor Jones?"
"Um, um, ahh, because he mocks the scientific meth–"
"Out with it!"
"All right! You caught us! We've been ordered by President Bush to assault the academic freedom that Professor Jones continually abuses!"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've had solid philosophical training, thank you. But would you mind elaborating on how I'm being fast and loose, exactly? Just giving a lengthy quote from wikipedia doesn't explain that.

You said, "I meant to say that even if we have no way of knowing which was the operative reason in putting Jones on leave, it would be a relevant piece of knowledge if it were available.

That is my assertion. And it is not the kind of assertion for which it even makes sense to support it with evidence." and then claimed it to be an analytic statement; thus implying that it is equivalent to "bachelors are single" or "tables exist" in its self evidence.


I do not think that is quite fair.

I'm not interested in your opinions; that's what started this tangent.


The situation is that we have two pieces of potential evidence as to what the operative reason was:
1) BYU's statement
2) said photograph.

Now, you might argue that there is no reason at all to think that (2) would be a relevant piece of evidence at all. But now look at the BYU statement:

(my bolding)

So is it so weird to suppose that Jones was accusing government officials, Bush got annoyed, and spoke about that with Hinckley?

You are still assuming a link without showing the link to exist, and on top of it saying that the link probably can't be shown, and that it doesn't matter if it is shown.


So, no need to suppose all this:-

Bush could have got annoyed and exerted pressure regardless of what he has to do with 9/11.
It's called sarcasm. Didn't they cover that in philosophy?

[Gravy]

Bush could have got annoyed and exerted pressure regardless of what he has to do with 9/11.
So ask them. They're bound to tell the truth, you know.

[brumsen]

You said, "I meant to say that even if we have no way of knowing which was the operative reason in putting Jones on leave, it would be a relevant piece of knowledge if it were available.

That is my assertion. And it is not the kind of assertion for which it even makes sense to support it with evidence." and then claimed it to be an analytic statement; thus implying that it is equivalent to "bachelors are single" or "tables exist" in its self evidence.
Some analytic statements are quite a bit more complicated than that. Note, by the way, that you substituted the wikipedia's phrase "without needing to consult experience" with "self-evidence". There's the pinch.

You are still assuming a link without showing the link to exist, and on top of it saying that the link probably can't be shown, and that it doesn't matter if it is shown.
I am not assuming it, and have never said the latter.

It's called sarcasm.
Thank you for pointing this out to me. But even while it was dripping with sarcasm, the passage did make the point that one had to assume Bush's involvement in 9/11 in order to hypothesize a link between the photograph and BYU's treatment of Jones. Which point needed responding to.

[brumsen]

We understand what you're saying, Your English is impeccable. Your semantic games are deplorable.
I wasn't worried about linguistic sources for misunderstanding.
And I'm not playing games.

So ask them. They're bound to tell the truth, you know.
'cause they're mormons?
Does that give a guarantee that they do tell the truth?

Anyway... who'd you suggest I ask?
Bush?
Hinckley?
BYU officials? Arkan Wolfshade knows all about them being forthcoming with answers to questions asked about Jones.

Are mormons bound to answer at all?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I wasn't worried about linguistic sources for misunderstanding.
And I'm not playing games.


'cause they're mormons?
Does that give a guarantee that they do tell the truth?

Anyway... who'd you suggest I ask?
Bush?
Hinckley?
BYU officials? Arkan Wolfshade knows all about them being forthcoming with answers to questions asked about Jones.

Are mormons bound to answer at all?

Well gee Brumsen, who are you going to believe if you ever get around to asking them? Or are you just going to keep waving your hands, asking leading questions, and feigning innocence?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm starting to think that brumsen is a padawan of hammegk.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I wasn't worried about linguistic sources for misunderstanding.
And I'm not playing games.


'cause they're mormons?
Does that give a guarantee that they do tell the truth?

Anyway... who'd you suggest I ask?
Bush?
Hinckley?
BYU officials? Arkan Wolfshade knows all about them being forthcoming with answers to questions asked about Jones.

Are mormons bound to answer at all?

If you are going quit screwing around and eventually ask us at some point, could you please do so before you order the police and military to shoot us on sight? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order)

When people are running around making wild unfounded accusations about us, we get just a tad nervous. :p

[pgwenthold]

I still don't get it. Even if Bush didn't have anything to do with 9/11 (of course he didn't), they would never take a publicity photo of a meeting in which he is using the presidency to influence an official to silence a citizen.

That kind of crap happens behind closed doors without a photographer present. Heck, no way the president would even be the one to show up near the place because it would lead to questions being asked, and the purpose of his visit would be leaked. Instead, the President would have the other principles brought secretly to the White House, letting as few people as possible know.

How do I know this? Only because I'm not an idiot.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I still don't get it. Even if Bush didn't have anything to do with 9/11 (of course he didn't), they would never take a publicity photo of a meeting in which he is using the presidency to influence an official to silence a citizen.

That kind of crap happens behind closed doors without a photographer present. Heck, no way the president would even be the one to show up near the place because it would lead to questions being asked, and the purpose of his visit would be leaked. Instead, the President would have the other principles brought secretly to the White House, letting as few people as possible know.

How do I know this? Only because I'm not an idiot.

Phone and internet service are also readily available in Utah. Face-to-face meetings are soooooo last century.

[brumsen]

Phone and internet service are also readily available in Utah. Face-to-face meetings are soooooo last century.
uh-huh. That's why Airforce One is hardly ever used, I suppose.

[Bradk3]

Yeah, that's a tough one. I mean how often does the President go to Utah? Try to find out the reason for the visit. That might help, but I doubt it. Also, try to find the number of time the Pres. has visited other religious leaders (The Pope for example).
President Bush visited Utah to speak at a convention of the American Legion that was held here. It was big news around these parts.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640193001,00.html

and

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060831-1.html

As you'll see from the Deseret News link, he's visited Utah three times and has met with the leadership of the Mormon church at least twice. Although it's common practice for visiting dignitaries to visit with the Church leadership when they come to Utah. There have been similar visits by President Clinton and Reagan, although I can't find any links (President Clinton was given a book containing his family history by President Hinckley at one point, I believe).

The visit is hardly unusual. As for the timing; blame the American Legion.

As for other leaders, here's an instance of President Bush visiting the Pope:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/europe/19.html

I can't think of any other prominent religious leaders at the moment, or I would do more.

[brumsen]

The visit is hardly unusual. As for the timing; blame the American Legion.
Nor am I suggesting that it is. Why assume that he went there in order to discuss Jones?
No, my question was: would they have talked about Jones at all, in passing?


Well gee Brumsen, who are you going to believe if you ever get around to asking them? Or are you just going to keep waving your hands, asking leading questions, and feigning innocence?
OK; here's the deal.
Suggest me a question, and a person to ask it to, the answer to which will settle whether Bush's meeting with Hinckley has anything at all to do with the operative reason in putting Jones on paid leave.
Then I'll ask it, and report back.

[pgwenthold]

uh-huh. That's why Airforce One is hardly ever used, I suppose.

Yep, they use AF1 all the time for secret influence peddling.

So when the 43 reporters ask, "Where are we going?" they get told, "Oh its a secret meeting to influence the head of the mormon church to silence an uppity faculty at BYU"

Genius, you don't use AF1 for secret opps.

[Bradk3]

Nor am I suggesting that it is. Why assume that he went there in order to discuss Jones?
No, my question was: would they have talked about Jones at all, in passing?
Fair enough.

I can only speculate, like everyone else. They would have a lot of other things to talk about: The war, 9/11, the American Legion meeting, Bush's high approval ratings in Utah, etc. It's possible that they may have talked about a boneheaded professor with shoddy science and worthless research, but I don't think it very likely. Take that for what it's worth.

[eeyore1954]

Unfortunately John doe and the others will see this as proof that the engineers and other scientists of the world have reason to be afraid to come out and expose the official story for the "lie" it is.

[Arus808]

and of course the hole would be, that if engineers and scientists from other countries are not "afraid" to come out (since our laws can't touch them), why haven't they done so yet?

[apathoid]

uh-huh. That's why Airforce One is hardly ever used, I suppose.

Weak.

[Bradk3]

Phone and internet service are also readily available in Utah. Face-to-face meetings are soooooo last century.
Actually, no, they're not. Unlike some Mormons I could mention, we Utah Mormons don't believe in phones. Nor do we believe in using the Internet, as it is a tool of Satan. In fact, technology in general is evil and we must return to a simpler time of buggies and...

Wait. I think I'm confusing myself with the Amish...

My mistake.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, no, they're not. Unlike some Mormons I could mention, we Utah Mormons don't believe in phones. Nor do we believe in using the Internet, as it is a tool of Satan. In fact, technology in general is evil and we must return to a simpler time of buggies and...

Wait. I think I'm confusing myself with the Amish...

My mistake.

I'm sorry, your post didn't quite come through. The string on my soup can came loose. Can you repeat that?

[Mr. Skinny]

uh-huh. That's why Airforce One is hardly ever used, I suppose.Which Air Force One?

The one sitting on the runway where I work every day must mean that the President really lives in Dayton, Ohio. Yep, that's the ticket! He's been running the government from Orville Wright's old home here called Hawthorne Hill. It's often refered to a the "just-north-of-the-Ohio-River White House".

It's just an analytic proposition based on my own experience, and I doubt I could prove it, but I think something is fishy.

[Bradk3]

I'm sorry, your post didn't quite come through. The string on my soup can came loose. Can you repeat that?
You use string?!

Apostate.

[chipmunk stew]

Nor am I suggesting that it is. Why assume that he went there in order to discuss Jones?
No, my question was: would they have talked about Jones at all, in passing?
How the eff would anyone know that?

If I were to guess, I'd say Bush has little to no idea who Jones is and this Mormon leader probably finds him embarrassing and would have no reason to bring his name up.

[Gravy]

And I'm not playing games.
Well, I apologize. Maybe it's just the mood I'm in after dealing with the endless games of the truthers this weekend, but I've had a hard time taking your responses seriously in this thread. As below. I'll go away after this post.

'cause they're mormons?
Does that give a guarantee that they do tell the truth?Ah, pursue that line of reasoning!

Anyway... who'd you suggest I ask?
Bush?
Hinckley?
BYU officials? Arkan Wolfshade knows all about them being forthcoming with answers to questions asked about Jones. You're on to something!

Are mormons bound to answer at all?
You're SO CLOSE.

Now, try answering your own questions, for Pete's sake.

[Darth Rotor]

In any case, we all know that George Bush takes orders from religious leaders, not the other way around.
May I suggest he takes orders from Laura, and not much of anyone else, but relies on people like VP Cheney and Condi to do his hard thinking for him?

DR

[WildCat]

How the eff would anyone know that?

If I were to guess, I'd say Bush has little to no idea who Jones is and this Mormon leader probably finds him embarrassing and would have no reason to bring his name up.
And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

Far more likely is that Bush/Cheney never even heard of any of these idiots.

[R.Mackey]

While arguably Jones has provided good reason to put him on leave, it is nonetheless important to know what the actually operative reason was.

In other words: suppose Bush talked Hinckley into putting pressure on BYU regarding Jones, which then resulted in his being put on leave just before 9/11/06. He would most likely not have asked Hinckley to do so because of Jones' failing to live up to academic standards, and neither would Hinckley have pressured BYU for that reason.

While all this is hypothetical, it does show, IMHO, that we should want to know the operative reason for putting Jones on leave. Even if there are academic reasons for doing so, it may actually have been done by means of an assault on academic freedom.
Hello again brumsen,

If BYU was a public university, I might agree that the public should know why a professor was being put on leave. BYU is private, however, so it's not really my business. It's also religious, and the Mormon church keeps some secrets close to its vest, which it is and should be free to do so under the US Constitution.

There are many professors put on leave for ethical violations, you know. I have no reason, at this point, to suspect Jones is any different from the others -- and neither do you. It's painfully obvious that Jones has been walking a very fine line for some time, and is disliked by much of the rest of the faculty there, so his dismissal should come as no surprise.

The whole thing about W visiting BYU? (Edit: W didn't even go to BYU, but spoke to BYU officials in Salt Lake City. My bad.) Unless BYU says otherwise, there's no connection. I'll even admit it's possible they did talk about it -- W strikes me as an amiable guy, given to light conversation. He may have an abominable civil rights record and inscrutable fiscal policy, but he can be personable... So what? If he wanted Jones gone, and BYU was prone to acquiesce to his request, he'd have just made a phone call.

What does W's physical presence change? The BYU staff was afraid he'd beat them up? No sir. I don't buy it.

Until we hear something that actually is suspicious, we're chasing ghosts. Let's not bother.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The whole thing about W visiting BYU? Unless BYU says otherwise, there's no connection. What does W's physical presence change? The BYU staff was afraid he'd beat them up? No sir. I don't buy it.

W never went to BYU. He visited the church leaders in SLC. BYU is in Provo.

As far as wether talking to Pres. Hinckley would produce results? Probably not. BYU has a dean and chairs of it's various departments just like any other university and they, not the church leaders, run the school.

I can't imagine the 1st Presidency or The Quorum of the Twelve directly stepping into BYU affairs unless some HUGE scandal had occurred, like all the faculty drank Coke™ or the entire female student body showed up to class with thier knees and shoulders exposed or something.

Given the blinding speed at wich most bureaucracys operate, wether ecclesiastical, educational or both, it's quite likely that Jones's suspension was in the works weeks if not months in advance of Bush's visit to Salt Lake City. Wich is actually another funny thing about CT's. They always assume that bureaucratic efficeincy will skyrocket whenever required to in order to maintain the viability of the CT.

Until we hear something that actually is suspicious, we're chasing ghosts. Let's not bother.

WE are not chasing ghosts, that's all Brummy. Probably along with the rest of the "truth" seekers in a few weeks depending how Jones is handled.

[R.Mackey]

W never went to BYU. He visited the church leaders in SLC. BYU is in Provo.
Corrected, sorry about that. I think my point is still valid.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Corrected, sorry about that. I think my point is still valid.

Of course. :)

[Cyphermage]

Well, paid leave is usually shorthand for, we'll pay you not to work until we ccan find a cheep way of getting rid of you.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, obviously the university as a private business can hire and fire as they choose, but I think this is just going to make a martyr out of him. Anyone smart enough to make it to university should (not "do") have the thinking skills to see through his bull, I don't agree with limiting the ideas which undergrads are exposed to. However this doesn’t mean that the university should have to pay him to spread his lies. Like I say, I'm unsure where I stand.

This is clearly harrassment for his views. His personal opinions on 9/11 hardly affect how well he teaches his physics classes, and being employed at a University doesn't mean you have to shut your mouth everytime you contemplate saying something the University might disagree with.

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.

[Dog Town]

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.
Not when you parade BYU every chance you get! Not when you use their research facilities(private school , I will add)! He used them for cred, just like the water boy from UL! See ya.

Mormons don't like liers, so I've heard, morals and all that stuff....

[Gravy]

This is clearly harrassment for his views. His personal opinions on 9/11 hardly affect how well he teaches his physics classes, and being employed at a University doesn't mean you have to shut your mouth everytime you contemplate saying something the University might disagree with.

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.
Not when he makes a mockery of the scientific method by publishing deliberately skewed research about 9/11 in non-peer reviewed online journals. BYU has an academic reputation to uphold. In his 9/11 work he uses BYU's labs and he represents himself as Steven Jones, BYU physicist, not Steven Jones, layman.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is clearly harrassment for his views. His personal opinions on 9/11 hardly affect how well he teaches his physics classes, and being employed at a University doesn't mean you have to shut your mouth everytime you contemplate saying something the University might disagree with.

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.

I was going to write a response to this... until I saw James B. hit it out of the park with his latest over at Screw Loose Change (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/journal-vs-journal.html):

The paper has undergone significant modifications following a third set of peer review organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.
OK, let me get this straight. His "peer review" was organized by the person he appointed to the position, at the journal he founded and runs, and who has also contributed to the very paper that he is arranging the peer review for.

Am I the only one who sees a potential problem here?

Again, the above was shamelessly stolen from James B. ;)

I know of no university who will idly stand by while one of thier profs engages in such blatantly unethical conduct. It's conflict-of-interest-O-rama over there. Someone needs to bring both Jones AND his sycophants to heal before they cause critical damage to national security.

[Dog Town]

I know of no university who will idly stand by while one of thier profs engages in such blatantly unethical conduct. It's conflict-of-interest-O-rama over there. Someone needs to bring both Jones AND his sycophants to heal before they cause critical damage to national security.

Halla freaken luyah !" The Academic Beast Must Awaken", and here it comes!
Hope they enjoyed the ride. To quote Sam: " A change gonna come"!

[Cyphermage]

Not when he makes a mockery of the scientific method by publishing deliberately skewed research about 9/11 in non-peer reviewed online journals. BYU has an academic reputation to uphold. In his 9/11 work he uses BYU's labs and he represents himself as Steven Jones, BYU physicist, not Steven Jones, layman.

I looked at one of his papers. He just says he is a "physicist", not a "BYU physicist" and he states the views expressed are totally his own.

None of BYU's business.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You need to look further. He's listed BYU among his credentials in numerous places.

ETA: I just looked at his paper as posted on his self-reviewed "journal" site. BYU is mentioned no less than three times in the paper. Including specific mention of BYU facilities used to conduct experiments.

[brumsen]

And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

No. Consider this scenario:
Bush visits Hinckley&co. In passing, Hinckley makes a remark about how Jones is spewing accusations. Bush amiably says, "yeah, I don't know where he gets it all from, but it's annoying to have such an idiot at BYU, innit".
Hinckley makes a call to BYU saying, "I spoke to the president, and he is displeased with this Jones stuff. Isn't it time something was done about him?"

No more is needed.

If BYU was a public university, I might agree that the public should know why a professor was being put on leave. BYU is private, however, so it's not really my business.
OK - the concept of a private university is alien to me. So I'll admit to being puzzled by that last statement here. Just keep running into things I frankly don't understand about how you guys do things across the big pond.

There are many professors put on leave for ethical violations, you know.
Equally puzzling, if not more so. But if you say so...

I'll even admit it's possible they did talk about it -- W strikes me as an amiable guy, given to light conversation. He may have an abominable civil rights record and inscrutable fiscal policy, but he can be personable... So what? If he wanted Jones gone, and BYU was prone to acquiesce to his request, he'd have just made a phone call.
Agree - see above.

What does W's physical presence change? The BYU staff was afraid he'd beat them up? No sir. I don't buy it.

Me neither. But in a face-to-face meeting, a powerful figure like GW could drop remarks that are acted on immediately, where over the phone this would have required explicit pressure. Call it a fact of life.
This is (one reason at least) why presidents travel, rather than just handling all business over the phone.

As far as wether talking to Pres. Hinckley would produce results? Probably not. BYU has a dean and chairs of it's various departments just like any other university and they, not the church leaders, run the school.
Again, I've no idea.... but would like to find out.

Given the blinding speed at wich most bureaucracys operate, wether ecclesiastical, educational or both, it's quite likely that Jones's suspension was in the works weeks if not months in advance of Bush's visit to Salt Lake City.
The point being, that the scenario I describe above is not a bureaucratic procedure.

I know of no university who will idly stand by while one of thier profs engages in such blatantly unethical conduct. It's conflict-of-interest-O-rama over there. Someone needs to bring both Jones AND his sycophants to heal before they cause critical damage to national security.
We agree that Jones is not spotless, but I'd like to remind you of what I wrote in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1919601&postcount=47).

Critical damage to national security...:D Oh I got it, that's...
And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

Finally, could I just remind you people that no-one has seen fit to answer this:-
Suggest me a question, and a person to ask it to, the answer to which will settle whether Bush's meeting with Hinckley has anything at all to do with the operative reason in putting Jones on paid leave.
Then I'll ask it, and report back.

[R.Mackey]

OK - the concept of a private university is alien to me. So I'll admit to being puzzled by that last statement here. Just keep running into things I frankly don't understand about how you guys do things across the big pond.
Basically, it means that the university is a non-profit organization, but is governed by private entities and therefore does not answer to the public. Jones's alma mater Vanderbilt is one. So is mine, Caltech.

Private universities may impose their own particular codes of ethics upon their faculty. In most cases, it is more stringent than a public university. BYU, also being religious, may place restrictions on blasphemous speech, for instance, that would not be found at Caltech, which is secular. I don't know that they do, nor do I imply this is something Jones is guilty of, I'm just trying to illustrate.

You need to keep in mind that a professorship is a job. A university may decide to dismiss faculty for any number of reasons, including not just ethics but also performance, business, or public relations.

Should the Government force BYU to keep Jones on the staff? I would say no. It's not the Government's business.

Should the Government force BYU to explain to the world why they're firing him? Again, no. If Jones is being unfairly treated, he has recourse in the civil courts.

There's nothing sinister here.


Finally, could I just remind you people that no-one has seen fit to answer this:-
Well, I might remind you that Jones' case is probably still under review, and it would be unethical to give you any information. But I would start with the department office at BYU, ask them if they have any official statements to make regarding his case.

If I was a sneaky investigative reporter, I'd lurk around and talk to the secretaries and grad students. But I'm not. Frankly, I don't care. As much as I disagree with Jones, he deserves to be left alone. This is his career we're discussing, not some evil conspiracy.

[brumsen]

You need to keep in mind that a professorship is a job. A university may decide to dismiss faculty for any number of reasons, including not just ethics but also performance, business, or public relations.
I have sufficient academic experience to know that it's a job, thank you. In Europe however it's not just a job that you can be fairly simply dismissed from.

Should the Government force BYU to keep Jones on the staff? I would say no. It's not the Government's business.

Should the Government force BYU to explain to the world why they're firing him? Again, no. If Jones is being unfairly treated, he has recourse in the civil courts.
Agree. And I think he probably will, by the way.

As much as I disagree with Jones, he deserves to be left alone. This is his career we're discussing, not some evil conspiracy.
You're right. Surely he has a reason to ask the question I've been posing, but I nor others should stick their nose in before he has done so.
So until that time I should content myself having my worries go without answers. And so should others here.

ETA: thank you for being so reasonable, R Mackey. I recognise that I sometimes get carried away because of other people's postings.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Looks like the truthers have launched thier Jihad (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060913/NEWS01/609130355/1001/NEWS).

Should I be worried about the timing of this attack, Brummy? You know how angry many of the twoofers are. You've no doubt seen the death threats Marky and Abby have recieved ans the ones that JohndoeX has sent out.

It's very suspicious to see this coming so close on the heels of the Bush/Hinckley meeting and the Jones suspension.

[brumsen]

Looks like the truthers have launched thier Jihad (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060913/NEWS01/609130355/1001/NEWS).

Should I be worried about the timing of this attack, Brummy? You know how angry many of the twoofers are. You've no doubt seen the death threats Marky and Abby have recieved ans the ones that JohndoeX has sent out.

It's very suspicious to see this coming so close on the heels of the Bush/Hinckley meeting and the Jones suspension.
Although it would be puzzling that this happened in Hawai, I agree that it might be reason for concern, yes.
Could I just ask, for the record, why you address this to me though. You are well aware that I have left SfT some time ago exactly because they / Fetzer did not want to distance themselves from advocating violence.

Yes, yes, I know you're joking, truthy-swordy. But only in part, right?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Awwww... Brummy, you went and called my bluff early. :p

I'll get straight to the point then; I have as much evidence that truthers were behind this attack as you do that Bush leaned on Hinckley to fire Jones. Or that Bush or anyone but Osama Bin Laden was behind 9-11 for that matter. But the former is my main point.

If on the very unlikely chance that truthers were behind this though, I intend to take it VERY personally.

[brumsen]

If on the very unlikely chance that truthers were behind this though, I intend to take it VERY personally.
Would you care to elaborate on that?

ETA:
I have as much evidence that truthers were behind this attack as you do that Bush leaned on Hinckley to fire Jones.
Which is why I haven't made any assertion that he did. Only said that we should want to know whether.

[mrfreeze]

But there really is no way to actually know. Unless of course those involved pull a Larry Silverstein slip up and reveal the whole thing during a press conference. It seems rather unlikely though.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

ETA:

Which is why I haven't made any assertion that he did. Only said that we should want to know whether.

Dr. Steven Jone s's problems have nothing to do with GWB, it has more to do with unfounded false deformation against another member of the Mormon Church, and Alumni of BYU than with GWB.

[Bradk3]

No. Consider this scenario:
Bush visits Hinckley&co. In passing, Hinckley makes a remark about how Jones is spewing accusations. Bush amiably says, "yeah, I don't know where he gets it all from, but it's annoying to have such an idiot at BYU, innit".
Hinckley makes a call to BYU saying, "I spoke to the president, and he is displeased with this Jones stuff. Isn't it time something was done about him?"

No more is needed.

*snip*

Me neither. But in a face-to-face meeting, a powerful figure like GW could drop remarks that are acted on immediately, where over the phone this would have required explicit pressure. Call it a fact of life.
This is (one reason at least) why presidents travel, rather than just handling all business over the phone.

Again, I've no idea.... but would like to find out.

I think I'm understanding where you're coming from with these questions. You're not neccessarily insinuating that there was a conspiracy between President Bush and the Mormon church to axe Jones, but that President Bush could have (intentionally or not) influenced the decision.

First, as Sword_Of_Truth has said, the Mormon leadership doesn't often (I can't think of any specific examples, although there may be some) get directly involved in the affairs of BYU.

Second (and I have support for this other than my status as an active Mormon), I don't think that the Mormon leadership cares one way or t'other about what President Bush feels about the matter. President Hinckley has met with enough dignitaries (presidents, foreign leaders, etc) that he's probably not one to feel the need to placate President Bush.

Third, I really doubt President Bush is aware of who Jones is at all.

Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be able to get satisfactory answers to this at all. President Bush is unlikely to respond to any request about it. The Church has issued no official report of what was discussed during the 40 minute meeting between Mormon leaders and President Bush, so they're not likely to respond. BYU officials are equally unlikely to comment because it's an ongoing investigation.

About the only one involved who's likely to tell you anything would be Jones and he's hardly likely to provide any useful information.

Besides, I'm not completely familiar with your stance on 9/11. If you're convinced President Bush was behind it, a response from him saying that Jones was not discussed is unlikely to hold water for you. If you think the Mormon church is culpable, then a similar response from them would be meaningless. BYU would be equally unreliable in that situation. However, I may be misjudging you here unfairly. If so, I appologise.

Again, I think I see where you're coming from. I just think you're probably barking up the wrong tree on this.

Just my
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Qxf1YEXyKIPYBM:http://www.europschool.net/photos/euro_/pieces/communes/com2cents.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.europschool.net/photos/euro_/pieces/communes/com2cents.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.europschool.net/photos/euro_/pieces/communes/2cents.htm&h=248&w=249&sz=14&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=Qxf1YEXyKIPYBM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2%2Bcents%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D)

Cheers!

[Bradk3]

But there really is no way to actually know. Unless of course those involved pull a Larry Silverstein slip up and reveal the whole thing during a press conference. It seems rather unlikely though.
A nice video tape of the correspondance would be nice. Unlikely, but nice.

[gumboot]

I just have to say...

Even entertaining the notion that the President of the USA might have discussed getting rid of Steven Jones from BYU for saying mean things about him...

Wait, scratch that.

Even thinking that GWB knows who Steven Jones is (let alone cares)...

...is the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Andrew

[Bradk3]

I just have to say...

Even entertaining the notion that the President of the USA might have discussed getting rid of Steven Jones from BYU for saying mean things about him...

Wait, scratch that.

Even thinking that GWB knows who Steven Jones is (let alone cares)...

...is the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Andrew
Agreed.

[brumsen]

I just have to say...

Even entertaining the notion that the President of the USA might have discussed getting rid of Steven Jones from BYU for saying mean things about him...

Wait, scratch that.

Even thinking that GWB knows who Steven Jones is (let alone cares)...

...is the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Andrew
Uhm, no, actually.
That would be: you implying that I have Nazi sympathies (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1914885&postcount=41).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Uhm, no, actually.
That would be: you implying that I have Nazi sympathies (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1914885&postcount=41).

You've denied it Brumsen, and unlike many 9-11 theorists, you've been consistently quite civil, so I'll refrain from beating you over the head with it.

That being said, however, we have confirmed a strong prescence of neo-nazis, white supremacists and old-fashioned anti-semites among the "truth" movement.

You can expect to see continued grilling of 9-11 theorists over the nazi issue because alot of them deserve it, and there's plenty of evidence to justify it.

[Stellafane]

And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

Far more likely is that Bush/Cheney never even heard of any of these idiots.

Not only that, it's far more likely that they're on their knees, thanking God for these idiots. They're the KKK of the left. Anytime Bush & co. want to paint an opponent as an extremist kook, all they have to do is associate them with the CTists. The CTists have probably generated more backlash support for Bush than they've convinced to leave his side.

Damn them.

[brumsen]

You've denied it Brumsen, and unlike many 9-11 theorists, you've been consistently quite civil, so I'll refrain from beating you over the head with it.
I hope you are not thinking that one recognizes Nazi's by their being uncivil.

[Brainache]

Maybe it's a language thing, but I thought it was pretty clear from Gumboot's post that he was being IRONIC.
I think he was saying that living under nazi rule is something which you would not enjoy and that thanks to the allied forces and Winston Churchill it is not something which you have to endure.
Seemed pretty obvious to me.

[brumsen]

Maybe it's a language thing, but I thought it was pretty clear from Gumboot's post that he was being IRONIC.
I think he was saying that living under nazi rule is something which you would not enjoy and that thanks to the allied forces and Winston Churchill it is not something which you have to endure.
Seemed pretty obvious to me.
Nah.. 'course he was.
Just thought it was in bad taste. Irony is not exempt from potentially being in bad taste.

ETA: and as for Gumboot's point which you so kindly elaborate... does the fact that my ancestors were liberated by the allied mean that still, every time any of the countries from those allies starts a war, we Europeans have to be thankful? I am not alone in being troubled by that idea. [/derail]

[T.A.M.]

Not IMO. Canada helped as well, but if we started a war that your country felt was imoral or corrupt, I personally would not expect your support.

Just My Opinion.

TAM

[Brainster]

Nah.. 'course he was.
Just thought it was in bad taste. Irony is not exempt from potentially being in bad taste.

ETA: and as for Gumboot's point which you so kindly elaborate... does the fact that my ancestors were liberated by the allied mean that still, every time any of the countries from those allies starts a war, we Europeans have to be thankful? I am not alone in being troubled by that idea. [/derail]

Thankful for the prior assistance, yes. Go along with the new war, no.

[dirtywick]

If the President is making an agenda of removing teachers from classrooms that subscribe to the 9/11 CT, why does Kevin Barret still have a job? That was a pretty big deal in WI and he was even on national TV talking about it.

[brumsen]

Thankful for the prior assistance, yes. Go along with the new war, no.
Absolutely agree with that, sure.

[eeyore1954]

Just curious would the president have much pull with the Mormon church

[T.A.M.]

which teacher was fired.

S. Jones was put on paid leave was he not?

[dirtywick]

which teacher was fired.

S. Jones was put on paid leave was he not?

Oh, my mistake! I changed what I wanted to write a few times and it still came out wrong...

I'll reword that if I can.

[T.A.M.]

If the President is making an agenda of removing teachers from classrooms that subscribe to the 9/11 CT, why does Kevin Barret still have a job? That was a pretty big deal in WI and he was even on national TV talking about it.

Nice edit.

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Just curious would the president have much pull with the Mormon church

Nowhere near enough that he can order the Prophet to have church employees, or employees of church institutions fired at will.

[firecoins]

The only plus side is that he won't have contact with those young, impressionable minds at BYU.

Leave that to Loose Change.

Now that they punished him, it increases hit stature in the world of CT.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Leave that to Loose Change.

Now that they punished him, it increases hit stature in the world of CT.

Cuz you know that hot, sweaty Dylan love will more than make up for the shortfall in his income. :p

[Dog Town]

Cuz you know that hot, sweaty Dylan love will more than make up for the shortfall in his income. :p

Not to mention leaving ones own church, if that is the outcome. Any new news local wise SoT? You guy's have a living Prophet?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I cullled this from 911blogger:

I am LDS, and I have rarely if ever crticized the Church, but I think that you should all know that it is my opinion that the final decision made in this case WILL constitute a referrendum by the LDS church on the 9/11 truth movement. I can not believe that, given the implications of this, that this decision will be made purely at the level of BYU administration. I also am trying not to be too cynical about the timing of this, given the recent meeting (last week) between President Bush and church officials.

I hope that this situation does not present me with the type of crisis of faith that will be inevitable if they sign on in endorsement and protection of the "Official religous myth" of the Neo-Con nation-state.

Let me explain what's happening here with this guy.

Today, he believes that a band of israelites settled the Yucatan peninsula in 600 BC. He believes that Jesus visited and walked with the ancestors of the aztec and maya, having "beamed over" shortly after his crucifixion and ressurection. He believes that God and Jesus revealed the ancient hidden gospel to a 14 year old boy in New York state in 1820.

He believes this, as all mormons do, on the grounds that he recieved a personal revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost.

If Steven Jones doesn't return to work in the next couple weeks, he's going to decide that since the mormon leaders didn't rubber stamp his pet political cause, that all of the above is not true. He is going to decide that on those grounds that it wasn't really the Holy Ghost that whispered in his ear and said the church was true.

I suppose that, he will blame on the Bush administration too. :p

[Rrramon]

Hey guys-- I was debating a CTer on another forum and found a couple things on Steven Jones that I thought you'd get a kick out of.

Here is the first part of Jones' response to an accusation that his paper hasn't been presented at a scientific meeting or peer reviewed by any scholars in the same discipline:

I did indeed present my paper (as much of it as I had time for) at the Utah Academy of Sciences in April 2006, a fact which is announced on the very first page of my Answers to Questions and Objections (AnsQ). Much of the specific, scientific data given in
AnsQ was presented at the Utah Academy of Sciences meeting. My abstract for the meeting
was submitted, reviewed and accepted for presentation at that meeting. The data are now in
the public domain.

And here are the rules for submission as stated on the Utah Academy of Sciences website:

Send title of paper or poster and short abstract (150 words or less) by March 7, 2006 to the appropriate Division Chair (see below for Division Chair listing).

He is responding to a claim that his paper hasn't been peer reviewed by referencing a 150-word or less abstract he wrote describing it.

Also from the site:

Conference papers will be considered for publication in the refereed Journal of the Utah Academy.

I wonder if his paper was published? He forgot to address this in his answer.

The rest of his response has to do with the Journal of 9/11 Studies, of which he himself is a co-chair.

Also, here is Jones evading a question about peer review after a presentation he gave earlier this year:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731

[LashL]

Thank you, Rrramon, and welcome to the forum.

Here's a clickable link. You are right. Jones is being extremely evasive. Kudos to the guy questioning him who doesn't let up.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4997804576359751731

[Dog Town]

Here's a clickable link. You are right. Jones is being extremely evasive. Kudos to the guy questioning him who doesn't let up.


Steven Jones answering questions: Well...uhhem*clears throat* lies, or changes subject! This guy running for office somewhere?

[R.Mackey]

Here is the first part of Jones' response to an accusation that his paper hasn't been presented at a scientific meeting or peer reviewed by any scholars in the same discipline:
Welcome, Rrramon.

That's pretty typical of conferences. The overwhelming majority of them are not peer-reviewed. A few of the better conferences will have an editorial review board that screens papers for publication, but as this process is not blind, it's not up to the standard of a real journal.

Any professor in the world, in any discipline, should know the difference. I don't know precisely what Jones has said on this issue, but I can confidently say that the conference in question does not constitute "peer review."

The question for Jones is, if your paper was peer-reviewed (in any forum, don't care which one), may we see the reviewer comments?

[T.A.M.]

TAM's PUBLIC CHALLENGE:

I hearby challenge any person to find me one established, scientific journal, not internet based, that has "Peer Reviewed" and "Published" Steven Jones paper on the collapse of the twin towers.

TAM

[sleahead]

There is some speculation that BYU acted in response to an interview by Jones on a radio show. Jones says the people who appear to be responsible [for 9/11] are people like Paul Wolferwitz and Richard Perle, with support from "The International Banking Cartel". Perhaps this was too much for BYU. Jones has Bush in the clear beause he was threatened on the day with the "Angel is next" telephone call. It's laughable how easily the learned troofer can clear somebody if they want to.

The show's host is particularly poorly informed on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Jones is allowed to get away with most of his drivel unchallenged. A recording of the show can be found here:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuer/news/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=962706&sectionID=184