Comments on: Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/ Just another WordPress.com weblog Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:35:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Josh Poulson http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-19 Josh Poulson Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:35:53 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-19 Doesn't seem tremendously likely to be accepted, however. :( Doesn’t seem tremendously likely to be accepted, however. :(

]]> By: traditionalanglican http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-18 traditionalanglican Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:30:37 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-18 Josh Poulson I think you have a good start. If this were part of the SEFORA I may join. Josh Poulson I think you have a good start. If this were part of the SEFORA I may join.

]]> By: Josh Poulson http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-17 Josh Poulson Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:19:10 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-17 I wrote a counterpoint to the "Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers" called the "Bill of Responsibilities for SEFORA" <a href="http://pun.org/josh/archives/2006/10/proposed_sefora.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. While I did not criticize each item line by line, I did think about what the appropriate responsibilities should be for SEFORA based on their demands in the Bill of Rights. I wrote a counterpoint to the “Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers” called the “Bill of Responsibilities for SEFORA” here. While I did not criticize each item line by line, I did think about what the appropriate responsibilities should be for SEFORA based on their demands in the Bill of Rights.

]]> By: One More Look at Scientists and Engineers for Change « A Traditional Anglican Blogging http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-16 One More Look at Scientists and Engineers for Change « A Traditional Anglican Blogging Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:35:59 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-16 [...] I have written about Scientists and Engineers for Change because at first they looked like something that I could consider for support. I found this not to be so, and I have written herein and in comments to their website the reasons this is so. This morning, I spent sometime re-looking at their website and the internet overall concerning this group. My conclusion is that they are secular humanists, with a political agenda which support the Democratic party. [...] [...] I have written about Scientists and Engineers for Change because at first they looked like something that I could consider for support. I found this not to be so, and I have written herein and in comments to their website the reasons this is so. This morning, I spent sometime re-looking at their website and the internet overall concerning this group. My conclusion is that they are secular humanists, with a political agenda which support the Democratic party. [...]

]]> By: traditionalanglican http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-15 traditionalanglican Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:14:38 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-15 I mostly agree Bill Gascoyne above about trying to have science which is devoid of ideology. I do however draw the line if an activity no matter how promising has ethical or moral problems. In that case I fully let my ideology come in. I would say, I let my ideology limit or encourage areas of study. I like to think I do not let ideology influence my analysis or the outcome. I stated up front that I was doing a bit of hyperbole. Part of the hyperbole was stating things more black and white then they really are. You are correct there are shades of gray in ability to detach for ideology. I did take down the invitation to Darwin Fish after he said he was not going to visit. I mostly agree Bill Gascoyne above about trying to have science which is devoid of ideology. I do however draw the line if an activity no matter how promising has ethical or moral problems. In that case I fully let my ideology come in. I would say, I let my ideology limit or encourage areas of study. I like to think I do not let ideology influence my analysis or the outcome.

I stated up front that I was doing a bit of hyperbole. Part of the hyperbole was stating things more black and white then they really are. You are correct there are shades of gray in ability to detach for ideology.

I did take down the invitation to Darwin Fish after he said he was not going to visit.

]]> By: Bill Gascoyne http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-14 Bill Gascoyne Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:06:55 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-14 And, BTW, your "Invite to Darwin Fish" link over at the SEforA blog doesn't work.... And, BTW, your “Invite to Darwin Fish” link over at the SEforA blog doesn’t work….

]]> By: Bill Gascoyne http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-13 Bill Gascoyne Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:22:00 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-13 The idea that there are *scientists* devoid of ideology may be pure fancy, but all of them worthy of the title strive to produce *science* devoid of ideology. The majority of those who are worth their salt succeed in doing so, at least to a degree. Your criticism also seems to suppose that freedom from ideology is a black/white question, with no shades of gray. I submit that we might be able to judge the difference between "dark gray" and "slightly dingy white." The idea that there are *scientists* devoid of ideology may be pure fancy, but all of them worthy of the title strive to produce *science* devoid of ideology. The majority of those who are worth their salt succeed in doing so, at least to a degree. Your criticism also seems to suppose that freedom from ideology is a black/white question, with no shades of gray. I submit that we might be able to judge the difference between “dark gray” and “slightly dingy white.”

]]>