Biology professor draws fire for not recommending creationist students

[Phaycops]

All of the current, renewed discussion, ignores the fact that this student never took a class from this professor, never met him, and in fact left the university before suing him. So any discussion of what should go into writing a letter of recommendation is moot, because, as far as I understand it, most professors will refuse to just write letters of recommendation for students that they've never met or talked to. Just my two cents

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Actually, 2+2 =1 only if Z_3=(0,1,2). The modulus function is still at the heart of the group operation.

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

When we write 2+2=4 and 2+2=1 we are implicitly talking about the group (Real's vs. Mod 3), and tells us what type of + we are working with (Real number addition vs. modular arithmetic), which is why I said "You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition." in the original discussion of '2+2 always equals 4'.
(although I was mistaken on "many systems", because I can only find two (Z4 has 2+2=0, not "4")

I am wondering how we can tie this back into 'Biology professor draws fire for not recommending creationist students'? If he doesn't recommend 2 creationist students that approached him, and then doesn't recommend 2 more creationist students that approached him, how many creationist students that approached him did he not recommend?

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
When we write 2+2=4 and 2+2=1 we are implicitly talking about the group (Real's vs. Mod 3), and tells us what type of + we are working with (Real number addition vs. modular arithmetic), which is why I said "You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition." in the original discussion of '2+2 always equals 4'.
(although I was mistaken on "many systems", because I can only find two (Z4 has 2+2=0, not "4")

Uh, no, we aren't. 2+2=1 could equally apply to Z_4=(1,2,3). The fact is 2+2=4. If one wishs to speak of the modulus function, then one writes (2+2) mod 3. When speaking of groups, one needs to define the group first: On the group Z_3=(0,1,2), 2+2 =1.[/B

Cheers,

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Uh, no, we aren't. 2+2=1 could equally apply to Z_4=(1,2,3). The fact is 2+2=4. If one wishs to speak of the modulus function, then one writes (2+2) mod 3. When speaking of groups, one needs to define the group first: On the group Z_3=(0,1,2), 2+2 =1.[/B

Cheers,

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

The group Z4 is not (1,2,3), it is (0,1,2,3).

I agree that one needs to define the group first, and that is why I've said that in Z3 or Z4, 2+2 does not equal 4.

Ah, I believe I've thought of a way to indeed get "many" like I was claiming earler. Let me know what you think of this. We can make up an infinite number of sets where 2+2 is not even defined (so it doesn't equal 4 because it can't). The Naturals-{4} for example. These are called 'counter-examples'.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The group Z4 is not (1,2,3), it is (0,1,2,3).

My error. I meant Z3. The point is the group does not need to follow 0..n-1. The other point is that there is an implicit modulus function here.

Quote:

Ah, I believe I've thought of a way to indeed get "many" like I was claiming earler. Let me know what you think of this. We can make up an infinite number of sets where 2+2 is not even defined (so it doesn't equal 4 because it can't). The Naturals-{4} for example. These are called 'counter-examples'.

No. The point is 2+2 is a mathematical notation that implicitly means we are dealing with addition for either integers or reals. And furthermore meaning it is equal to 4. The notation implicitly means regular addition in base 10. Any other types of numbers or objects have unique notations or assumptions that must be stated a priori in order to be understood.

2+2 = 4
[2,x] + [2,y] <= 4

You are confounding mathematical notation. And we are getting farther afield from whatever point it was you wanted to make concerning evolution.

Cheers,

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

Regarding 2+2=4, which never gets old ,

Quote:

Any other types of numbers or objects have unique notations or assumptions that must be stated a priori in order to be understood.

I agree with that 100%, but note that saying 2+2=4 in fact has unique notations and assumptions behind it. The fact that they don't have to be stated a priori because it is more common to the general public, doesn't change that.

Quote:

You are confounding mathematical notation. And we are getting farther afield from whatever point it was you wanted to make concerning evolution.

Would you be kind to explain how I am "confounding" my notation?

As a counterexample, consider the set of all natural numbers, with the number 4 removed, what I call N-{4} (a set difference, not simple real number subtraction, of course).

Then calculate 2+2 and please share what you get. When I do it, for some reason I don't get always get 4 because I never get 4.

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

Regarding 2+2=4, which never gets old ,



I agree with that 100%, but note that saying 2+2=4 in fact has unique notations and assumptions behind it. The fact that they don't have to be stated a priori because it is more common to the general public, doesn't change that.

[/b]

Would you be kind to explain how I am "confounding" my notation?

As a counterexample, consider the set of all natural numbers, with the number 4 removed, what I call N-{4} (a set difference, not simple real number subtraction, of course).

Then calculate 2+2 and please share what you get. When I do it, for some reason I don't get always get 4 because I never get 4.
[/b]

Last time, sir. 2+2=4. That is the notation. That is the meaning. Your other example must be preceded by a definition of your special set, as you just did. If it is not preceded by such a description that takes it out of the standard meaning, 2+2=4.

Get back on track, please. The topic was Dini.

Cheers,

[Blue Monk]

Holy Cow!

I take the weekend off from posting and return to find that I have inadvertently sparked a heated debate over whether 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4, hehe.

I dare not speak of the delicious egg, cheese and bacon breakfast tacos I enjoyed this morning for fear of sparking further controversy.

Back to the point, Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact. Biology is a science and as a science it deals only in fact. If I were a biology professor I could not in good conscience give any recommendation to any student who cannot adhere to the most important and basic discipline required by good science, namely drawing conclusions based only on an objective understanding of established fact.

Anyone who would enter any field of science and then reject all established evidence that has been clearly and scientifically established in favor of subjective personal religious beliefs will by definition be a very poor scientist.

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Your other example must be preceded by a definition of your special set, as you just did. If it is not preceded by such a description that takes it out of the standard meaning, 2+2=4.

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

The real numbers are a "special set". Just what set do you think you are talking about when you write 2+2=4? Integer addition is a "special" operation. The fact that mod arithemetic and creating sets where 4 is not an element are not as common knowledge to the general public as real numbers and addition does not mean much to the question of finding examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

Clearly there are numerous examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

Quote:

Get back on track, please. The topic was Dini.

You can go post-for-post with me for many posts, and then tell me to get back on track? Shouldn't you have possibly noted that you yourself and anyone involved in this highly interesting discussion should get back on track too?

Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat. The explanation can be found in a standard book on group theory.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Valmorian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat. The explanation can be found in a standard book on group theory.

Don't you think you're being a little disingenious here? I'd say the meaning is rather clear in the example given. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing.

What exactly does this have to do with creationism and recommendations from a professor? Hell, unless I'm mistaken, one can hardly REQUIRE a professor to give a personal recommendation.

[RichardR]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat. The explanation can be found in a standard book on group theory.

Now you're comparing eggs and tacos to Blue Monks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian

Don't you think you're being a little disingenious here? I'd say the meaning is rather clear in the example given. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing.

Dear Mr. Valmorian,

The 1 delicious egg, etc., was in jest.

Quote:

What exactly does this have to do with creationism and recommendations from a professor? Hell, unless I'm mistaken, one can hardly REQUIRE a professor to give a personal recommendation.

Blue Monk said "Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4, the earth revolves around the sun and the facts support evolution not creationism.", and "If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician."

I responded by saying that 2+2 does not always equal 4, and BillHoyt responded with "Fascinating. Do regale us with specific examples of other "systems of mathematics". Focus especially on those wherein 2+2 <> 4.", so I gave examples. Rwguinn asked for examples too. Zombified showed curiousity too.

It doesn't have much to do with creationism and recommendations, that is clear. I alone can hardly be blamed (you didn't blame me, I'm just saying though) for getting the discussion off-topic, considering people specifically asked me to expand on the topic.

Very sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

Quote:

Originally posted by RichardR
Now you're comparing eggs and tacos to Blue Monks.

Dear Mr. RichardR,

The problem now is that I am hungry.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Blue Monk]

I understand what you are saying Sherlock but you are simply offering a split-hair defense.

When I stated that 2+2=4 everyone understood the example. For me to further clarify the example by explaining that I am in base 10 and the numbers in question are integers, etc. etc. is totally unnecessary and tedious. Trust me, you do not need to clarify in every post that you are not in fact, Sherlock Holmes, the fictional character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle but in fact a separate real life individual who has merely adopted that moniker.

The possible ways one can arrive at a different conclusion to the equation 2+2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Your deviations on this theme are only relevant if I were somehow posing that specific question which I was not.

So to further clarify, anyone who cannot accept the fact that in basic 3rd grade level mathematics that 2 + 2 = 4 (integers, base 10, etc.) will make a poor mathematician.

Likewise, anyone who rejects all established facts in the field of biology in favor of superstitious mumbo-jumbo will make a poor biologist and does not deserve a recommendation from a biology professor who is entrusted with the responsibility of teaching scientific fact, not religion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat.

Hehe, if that were true then I'd have to start calling myself Ben and Jerry.

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I alone can hardly be blamed (you didn't blame me, I'm just saying though) for getting the discussion off-topic, considering people specifically asked me to expand on the topic.

Sure, sometimes topics spark other topics.

I am sure I will forever be known as the guy that sparked the great 'breakfast taco' debate of '03.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Just what set do you think you are talking about when you write 2+2=4? Integer addition is a "special" operation. The fact that mod arithemetic and creating sets where 4 is not an element are not as common knowledge to the general public as real numbers and addition does not mean much to the question of finding examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

I have said quite clearly what we are talking about. We are talking about the meaning of 2+2. The notation means to add by standard mathematical means along the reals or integers. Period. Other notations are used for the special cases we have discussed.

Quote:

You can go post-for-post with me for many posts, and then tell me to get back on track? Shouldn't you have possibly noted that you yourself and anyone involved in this highly interesting discussion should get back on track too?

Yes I can. You are being obtuse, and you ignored my last comment germane to this thread's topic:

Quote:

I'm glad we don't disagree about many factors going into recommendation. But if you agree there are many factors, then why do you say they should receive the recommendation "based on the quality of work done"? Either the other factors factor in or they aren't really factors

Cheers,

Dear Mr. Blue Monk,

I don't think I was offering a "split hair" defense at all. In fact, I don't consider it defending at all. I'm merely pointing out some examples. People asked for specific examples of where 2+2 does not equal 4. If they asked for examples of where 2+2 does not equal 4 only using integer addition, I'd say that I couldn't do it.

Quote:

The possible ways one can arrive at a different conclusion to the equation 2+2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Your deviations on this theme are only relevant if I were somehow posing that specific question which I was not.

They are quite relevant I'd put forth, considering people were asking for examples.

Quote:

So to further clarify, anyone who cannot accept the fact that in basic 3rd grade level mathematics that 2 + 2 = 4 (integers, base 10, etc.) will make a poor mathematician.

I would tend to agree with that, although they could be good mathematicians later on in life.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

Quote:

The notation means to add by standard mathematical means along the reals or integers. Period. Other notations are used for the special cases we have discussed.

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

One can have 2+2=1, 2+2=0, and 2+2={}. In each case, I don't need to explain the sets used and so on for these to make mathematical sense. Someone might say that 2+2 can't be 1 because 2+2=4, etc., but that person may not know about Z_3. I don't need to explain that Z_3 exists for 2+2=1 to make perfect sense.

Quote:

You are being obtuse, and you ignored my last comment germane to this thread's topic:

Interesting! I am being obtuse when I have addressed all of your previous questions? Could there be any other reason? Perhaps I missed the question (because I was looking for 2's) , as opposed to intentional ignoring.

Thank you for bringing it up though. I will address it

Quote:

But if you agree there are many factors, then why do you say they should receive the recommendation "based on the quality of work done"? Either the other factors factor in or they aren't really factors

"Work done" is one of the big factors, perhaps the biggest. However, it is just one among several other factors.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Valmorian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I responded by saying that 2+2 does not always equal 4, and BillHoyt responded with "Fascinating. Do regale us with specific examples of other "systems of mathematics". Focus especially on those wherein 2+2 <> 4.", so I gave examples. Rwguinn asked for examples too. Zombified showed curiousity too.

While strictly speaking, you are being accurate here, the meaning of his statement was plain, don't you think? Why would you even say something like '2+2 does not always equal 4' when it has absolutely no bearing on what BillHoyt was explaining, unless it was to try and goad him into an argument?

Quote:

It doesn't have much to do with creationism and recommendations, that is clear. I alone can hardly be blamed (you didn't blame me, I'm just saying though) for getting the discussion off-topic, considering people specifically asked me to expand on the topic.

I'm just not really sure why you even brought it up?

I think the professor is certainly within his rights to only give recommendations to those students who exemplify what he considers to be traits worth recommendation.

It sounds like "not ignoring blatant evidence" is one of them.

[Phaycops]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I have said quite clearly what we are talking about. We are talking about the meaning of 2+2.

I can't believe I actually read that sentance. Me, a normal, reasonably rational person, is actually reading an argument about whether or not 2+2 actually = 4. Huh. I think I've gotta get me some hobbies

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian

While strictly speaking, you are being accurate here, the meaning of his statement was plain, don't you think? Why would you even say something like '2+2 does not always equal 4' when it has absolutely no bearing on what BillHoyt was explaining, unless it was to try and goad him into an argument?

Dear Valmorian,

If someone tells me that if I don't accept the fact that 2+2=4 then I am not a good candidate for being a mathematician, I'm going to naturally respond that there are cases where 2+2 does not equal 4, and moreover, a good mathematician would be aware of this fact.

Consider BillHoyt responding to me. I hardly "goad"ed him into it. I'm not moving his fingers and pressing "Submit Reply" for him.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Valmorian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Valmorian,

If someone tells me that if I don't accept the fact that 2+2=4 then I am not a good candidate for being a mathematician, I'm going to naturally respond that there are cases where 2+2 does not equal 4, and moreover, a good mathematician would be aware of this fact.

[/b]

Again, I believe you are being disingenious here. The specific claim itself is not vital to the point being made, as I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see. The point was should someone who holds views completely contrary to all the evidence in the field they are proposing to enter be considered a 'good' candidate?

I'm sure you're aware of what he meant, and just chose to throw out a red-herring instead of actually considering the point he was making.

Quote:

Consider BillHoyt responding to me. I hardly "goad"ed him into it. I'm not moving his fingers and pressing "Submit Reply" for him.

Nor is any other troll that gets responses, but that doesn't mean they weren't baiting.

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm not moving his fingers and pressing "Submit Reply" for him.
[/b]

OK, I admit it, I am. With my mind!

Where do I collect my one million?

Quote:

Originally posted by Valmorian

Again, I believe you are being disingenious here.

Dear Valmorian,

That is an interesting belief. Please read again the part where I was asked to show examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

Quote:

Nor is any other troll that gets responses, but that doesn't mean they weren't baiting.

Considering the subject of 2+2=4 was not brought up originally by me, and I'm not the only one talking about it, but yet I am apparantly the only one accused of baiting, that is an interesting comment.

Very interesting,
Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Darwin]

My thumbs tend to go more up than down for this guy.
Considering what may result from a person with previously mentioned bias entering biological education is obvious,I think we do have examples of this and ruthless attempts to retard science we do have enough of.
The analogy of fairies pushing water inside the pipes is a decent one I must admit.
Certain issues may follow though:
1.Whether it is right to keep the student from graduating due to his/her beliefs (presupposing that he/she will let them effect his/her work)
2.Whether it is ethical to assume that the student´s religious background will necessarily appear to oppose the scientifical position he/she is about to attend.

And so on.

Dear all,

What do people think about if it had to do with, say, theories of gravity, rather than evolution? Do you think the same hoop-la would have been made about it?

Also, does anyone know what the student is doing now? That is, did he find someone to recommend him?

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Zombified]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
What do people think about if it had to do with, say, theories of gravity, rather than evolution? Do you think the same hoop-la would have been made about it?

I don't think anyone would be surprised or shocked if a flat-earther or geocentrist didn't get a recommendation. (The gravitational equivalents of creationists.) Even most fundamentalists have pretty much given up on those points of view. Eventually it will be the same with creationists.

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Zombified
.Eventually it will be the same with creationists.

After dredging through the dross in this thread, question: what does the pejorative "creationist" mean to you people?

Am I for example a "creationist"? If so, why?

Can I agree the scientific method yields universe age 16 billion years & the theory of evolution and still be a creationist? Why not?

[Valmorian]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Valmorian,

That is an interesting belief. Please read again the part where I was asked to show examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

[/b]

Please read where I was talking about bringing up the "2+2 doesn't always equal 4" in the first place. THAT is what I'm pointing out, not the subsequent argument which is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

Quote:

Considering the subject of 2+2=4 was not brought up originally by me, and I'm not the only one talking about it, but yet I am apparantly the only one accused of baiting, that is an interesting comment.

Apparently I was mistaken in assuming you could understand the point he was making. I would have thought it was obvious that the specific examples he was giving were unimportant.

Unless, of course, you're simply continuing to troll. Something that I'd not be surprised to discover.

[Zombified]

(edit to add) In reply to Hammegk:

I'm sure it means different things to different people, but for my part, "creationist" is shorthand for people who:

- believe the earth/universe is orders of magnitude younger than current evidence suggests (young earth creationists), or

- reject evolution of the various species from some single original source (maybe old earth, but reject "macro" evolution), or

- consider humans to have been specially created seperate from animals (old earth, accept macro, but plead exceptions for people for theological reasons).

The borderline case is those people who regard evolution as being used by God for purposes of creation. There are cases of suboptimal design produced by evolution (consistent with the theory) that raise inconvenient theological questions, and teleological interpretations of evolution are not really scientific (because they're not operational), but I don't really consider these people "creationists" because they by and large don't reject evidence.

When comparing creationists to flat-earthers, I am of course thinking primarily of young earth creationists, whose rejection of evidence is so complete its not even ignorance, its dishonesty.

Does that answer your question? It's not clear from your question which group of possible creationists you're thinking of, though clearly not the YECs. I would infer, however, that you apply the term creationist to anyone who believes the world was deliberately created, regardless of timing or process.

Quote:

Please read where I was talking about bringing up the "2+2 doesn't always equal 4" in the first place. THAT is what I'm pointing out, not the subsequent argument which is completely irrelevant to the point being made.

Dear Mr. Valmorian,

Blue Monk brought up the "2+2=4" line of argument, not I. I was responding to it because there are cases where that is not true.

Quote:

Unless, of course, you're simply continuing to troll. Something that I'd not be surprised to discover.

I'd be interested is knowing how you distinguish 'responding' from "continuing to troll". I'd also be interested in knowing how you categorize yourself as 'responding' and not "continuing to troll".

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[jj]

I can't believe that this case of religious harrassment of a good scientist is still under any discussion.

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk


After dredging through the dross in this thread, question: what does the pejorative "creationist" mean to you people?

Am I for example a "creationist"? If so, why?

Can I agree the scientific method yields universe age 16 billion years & the theory of evolution and still be a creationist? Why not?

For me a 'creationist' is one who holds beliefs that are contrary to scientific fact. In that sense it is merely a label and not entirely accurate.

Of course it is possible for one to accept all scientific fact and still believe that God is still the catalyst and everything that follows is merely the mechanism he has chosen. I guess that would make one a 'creationist' in the strictist sense of the word but that is not what I think of when I use that term and also if one reads the criteria set out by Dini for recomendations I do not believe that opinion would disqualify one.

All he asks is that his students provide a scientific explanation for the emergence of life. The problem arises when a student holds 'alternative' views for which there is no scientific explanation and cannot provide a scientific explanation.

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion as the recomendation is for a student that can demonstrate a clear understanding of the scientific data.

[hammegk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Of course it is possible for one to accept all scientific fact and still believe that God is still the catalyst and everything that follows is merely the mechanism he has chosen. I guess that would make one a 'creationist' in the strictist sense of the word but that is not what I think of when I use that term and also if one reads the criteria set out by Dini for recomendations I do not believe that opinion would disqualify one.

Quote:

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion as the recomendation is for a student that can demonstrate a clear understanding of the scientific data.

We agree, with the "revised" guidelines. The old guidelines were imo blatently -- possibly illegally -- anti religious, and had zilch to contribute to "science".

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'd be interested is knowing how you distinguish 'responding' from "continuing to troll". I'd also be interested in knowing how you categorize yourself as 'responding' and not "continuing to troll".[/b]

That's simple.

If I do it it is reasoned, insightful, intelligent, relevant and often witty and enlightening discourse.

If you do it it is trolling.

Just be sure to remember that it is all about me and if you have any problems in the future just ask yourself, "What would Blue Monk do?"

[Blue Monk]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk



We agree, with the "revised" guidelines. The old guidelines were imo blatently -- possibly illegally -- anti religious, and had zilch to contribute to "science".

We agree!?

Wow, I better reread what I posted, hehe.

jk.

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaycops


I can't believe I actually read that sentance. Me, a normal, reasonably rational person, is actually reading an argument about whether or not 2+2 actually = 4. Huh. I think I've gotta get me some hobbies

2 + 2 can equal "22" if "+" is a concatenation operator.

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk

That's simple.
If I do it it is reasoned, insightful, intelligent, relevant and often witty and enlightening discourse.
If you do it it is trolling.
Just be sure to remember that it is all about me and if you have any problems in the future just ask yourself, "What would Blue Monk do?"

Dear Mr. Blue Monk,



Sincerely,

S. Holmes

Quote:

Originally posted by aggle_rithm

2 + 2 can equal "22" if "+" is a concatenation operator.

Dear aggle_rithm,

I like the idea, but the + isn't exactly acting the same way as addition.

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[fishbob]

Sherlock Holmes asks:

Quote:

Also, does anyone know what the student is doing now? That is, did he find someone to recommend him?

If I recall correctly, the student had not taken Prof Dini's class. Hmm, I wonder what Blue Monk would say about this?