Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[ERCougar]

Just saw this on Netflix. Anyone else see it?

I'm a little disappointed. He touched on some interesting points, but the message seemed to get lost in the constant Hitler/Holocaust references and trying to prove that modern scientists are "anti-religion". It's almost as if he's trying to cater to the evangelical, persecution-happy crowd to get this a lot of play in those circles. I really wish he had just stuck to the suppression of intellectual freedom that's occurring in scientific circles. I think this happens in all realms of thought, from Darwinism to global warming to CUF topics--people limit their thoughts to what's either "cool" or commonly accepted--but one would think science would be immune to this sort of thing. It's not, and I think that would have been an interesting area to more fully develop. I guess he's got to sell tickets.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Tell us more about this "suppression of intellectual freedom" occurring in modern science. I'm genuinely curious.

[RockyBalboa]

He's the lame extreme answer to the other lame extreme "Documentary" maker Mr. Moore.

[ERCougar]

Tell us more about this "suppression of intellectual freedom" occurring in modern science. I'm genuinely curious.

Well, I'm only peripherally involved in this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if you and woot disagree, but from what I've seen, there's certainly a pressure not to appear "crazy" or "fringe"-y. There's definitely a groupthink mechanism in operation. The safest course is to stay well within the established circle. It's not really surprising and I think it's human nature, but I would hope that science would be more immune to it than other fields. But it's still humans at work, and human forces will have their say.

I'm not sure if I can explain it well at the end of a nightshift (I use that excuse a lot, eh?). Stein points out multiple examples of otherwise distinguished scientists losing their faculty positions because of their questions they raise about evolution. I'm always suspicious about people who claim they're fired for some single "unjust" cause, as there's almost always a larger story behind it. I don't know any of these scientists personally, so I have no idea just how true their claims are; this is the reason I would have liked him to flesh these examples out a little more, instead of moving on to the scientists hate religion thing.

[ERCougar]

He's the lame extreme answer to the other lame extreme "Documentary" maker Mr. Moore.

That's exactly the feeling I had watching this. I don't mind Moore's documentaries (the ones I've seen--Sicko and Columbine), but I just don't feel much more well-informed after I watch them. It's almost like watching an infomercial.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, I'm only peripherally involved in this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if you and woot disagree, but from what I've seen, there's certainly a pressure not to appear "crazy" or "fringe"-y. There's definitely a groupthink mechanism in operation. The safest course is to stay well within the established circle. It's not really surprising and I think it's human nature, but I would hope that science would be more immune to it than other fields. But it's still humans at work, and human forces will have their say.

I'm not sure if I can explain it well at the end of a nightshift (I use that excuse a lot, eh?). Stein points out multiple examples of otherwise distinguished scientists losing their faculty positions because of their questions they raise about evolution. I'm always suspicious about people who claim they're fired for some single "unjust" cause, as there's almost always a larger story behind it. I don't know any of these scientists personally, so I have no idea just how true their claims are; this is the reason I would have liked him to flesh these examples out a little more, instead of moving on to the scientists hate religion thing.

I wouldn't expect perfection from any group, but I think accusations like this are vastly overblown. I would use the recent case with former BYU professor Stephen Jones as an example. He and his supporters used the same arguments about his "provocative research" at every step along the way. To the lay person, his arguments may have sounded convincing and he did have decent credentials (Stanford PhD). But it was complete nonsense and easily debunked. His failure to get his paper published in a reputable journal had nothing to do with a conspiracy. His science just didn't have a prayer when subjected a legitimate review process.

Good, solid science is impossible to suppress forever. If one has done solid research and has documented evidence, the process is fair and reliable overall.

[ERCougar]

I wouldn't expect perfection from any group, but I think accusations like this are vastly overblown. I would use the recent case with former BYU professor Stephen Jones as an example. He and his supporters used the same arguments about his "provocative research" at every step along the way. To the lay person, his arguments may have sounded convincing and he did have decent credentials (Stanford PhD). But it was complete nonsense and easily debunked. His failure to get his paper published in a reputable journal had nothing to do with a conspiracy. His science just didn't have a prayer when subjected a legitimate review process.

Good, solid science is impossible to suppress forever. If one has done solid research and has documented evidence, the process is fair and reliable overall.

Well, that's why I would have liked to see his examples fleshed out a little more. I am certainly skeptical, but there were quite a few examples he pointed out, not just an isolated case here or there. I've seen it with the global warming debate. Find me a forum where the global warming folks are willing to engage besides the link I posted a few months ago (where they were pretty soundly defeated). I've looked and I certainly can't find one. Instead of engaging in debate, the community just marginalizes the other side. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but that's how I'm seeing it.

I also see it on a much smaller scale every day in my work. People are more reluctant to appear stupid than to find the right answer to a question. If they're going to be wrong, it's much safer to be wrong with everyone else than to be wrong alone.

I do believe in the scientific process, ultimately. But we waste a lot of time and energy when we're not willing to evaluate ideas simply because they rub us the wrong way or challenge our preconceived notions or philosophies. Stein's most interesting point was not that ID is necessarily correct, but that it's being rejected out of hand. That's the point I wish he would have developed more fully.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I thought it was interesting, as explained in the physical traits thread I am not very smart, perhaps some of the unexplored science went over my head.

I don't get why Ben Stein always wears those ugly Skechers with his suit though, it is like he is trying to hard.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, that's why I would have liked to see his examples fleshed out a little more. I am certainly skeptical, but there were quite a few examples he pointed out, not just an isolated case here or there. I've seen it with the global warming debate. Find me a forum where the global warming folks are willing to engage besides the link I posted a few months ago (where they were pretty soundly defeated). I've looked and I certainly can't find one. Instead of engaging in debate, the community just marginalizes the other side. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but that's how I'm seeing it.

Because you haven't found one you assume that they don't exist?

If you want to accurately gauge the status of global warming science, go directly to the relevant scientific journals, not the political arenas or talk shows.

I also see it on a much smaller scale every day in my work. People are more reluctant to appear stupid than to find the right answer to a question. If they're going to be wrong, it's much safer to be wrong with everyone else than to be wrong alone.

Sure. Human nature.

I do believe in the scientific process, ultimately. But we waste a lot of time and energy when we're not willing to evaluate ideas simply because they rub us the wrong way or challenge our preconceived notions or philosophies. Stein's most interesting point was not that ID is necessarily correct, but that it's being rejected out of hand. That's the point I wish he would have developed more fully.

Could it be that it is sometimes rejected out of hand because it is unprovable? I.e., outside the realm of science? That's not a conspiracy.

[woot]

I'll come back to this thread when I have more time, but I'll just say for now that there isn't a single thing in Expelled that has any merit whatsoever, especially the "intellectual freedom" thing. Those people are intellectually free to believe and spew their bullshit, but if they're going to pretend to be scientists then they're going to have to have some evidence or else they will not find respect and will not be allowed to continue to preach religion in science class. It's that simple, and I assume the average person agrees with the basic principle when the obfuscatory language of "intellectual freedom" is removed.

Go to expelledexposed.com for tons of articles debunking the fake stories of the poor persecuted scientists that were "expelled", the false pretenses under which the real scientists were interviewed, as well as a general debunking of every word said in the whole movie.

[ERCougar]

Because you haven't found one you assume that they don't exist?

If you want to accurately gauge the status of global warming science, go directly to the relevant scientific journals, not the political arenas or talk shows.



Sure. Human nature.



Could it be that it is sometimes rejected out of hand because it is unprovable? I.e., outside the realm of science? That's not a conspiracy.

Jeff, I'm not arguing for ID. I just would have liked to see him flesh out his original point (and what his title implies about academic freedom). Your questions are the same that I have. All I'm saying is that if there are legitimate questions about evolution that are being squelched without examination, that's something that we should know about and would be the makings of a very interesting documentary. I don't know if it's happening or not, because the documentary wasn't very well done. Remember--this is a lukewarm review of the movie.

EDIT: Oh--and about the global warming thing. I'm not a climatologist. They aren't politicians. If they want my support for radically altering our economic policies in support of a climatologic theory, they're going to have to come talk in the political arena and not expect me to go read their journals. I don't think it's too much to ask. A single link for a two-sided debate on the subject --that's all. It's not like mine came from Hannity or Rush--it came from NPR. Doesn't that make you a little suspicious when they won't engage in a single debate? I really to tend to lean environmental on most issues (clean air/water, protection of wilderness areas, endangered species and biodiversity protection, etc) but their unwillingness to engage on this subject is extraordinarily frustrating.

[ERCougar]

I'll come back to this thread when I have more time, but I'll just say for now that there isn't a single thing in Expelled that has any merit whatsoever, especially the "intellectual freedom" thing. Those people are intellectually free to believe and spew their bullshit, but if they're going to pretend to be scientists then they're going to have to have some evidence or else they will not find respect and will not be allowed to continue to preach religion in science class. It's that simple, and I assume the average person agrees with the basic principle when the obfuscatory language of "intellectual freedom" is removed.

Go to expelledexposed.com for tons of articles debunking the fake stories of the poor persecuted scientists that were "expelled", the false pretenses under which the real scientists were interviewed, as well as a general debunking of every word said in the whole movie.

I'll have to check out that site when I get some time. Thanks for the link.

EDIT: I just read the profiles of the six scientists they put on the expelledexposed.com website. I suspected there was more to the stories. However, I'm still not convinced that Guillermo Gonzales or Robert Marks were treated fairly by their employers. Gonzalez' work from 2001-2007 ranks the highest in his department and he's denied tenure because he doesn't collaborate enough? Smells fishy.

Also, what did you think of Dawkins statement at the end of the movie about the origin of life? Stein asks him how he thinks life all began, to which he replies (I'm paraphrasing, but it's close) that an "intriguing" possibility is that a "higher intelligence" from another planet planted the "seeds of life" on earth. How is that materially different from a belief in God? Skeptic, indeed. I was waiting for Stein to call him on that one, but for some reason, he let it go.

Dawkins, like all Europeans, it seems, has REALLY bad teeth.

[Jeff Lebowski]

All I'm saying is that if there are legitimate questions about evolution that are being squelched without examination, that's something that we should know about and would be the makings of a very interesting documentary.

And I am just saying that I am extremely skeptical that this is happening.

If they want my support for radically altering our economic policies in support of a climatologic theory, they're going to have to come talk in the political arena and not expect me to go read their journals.

Now you are talking about politicians, not scientists. The best scientists interpret and explain the data and leave the policy implications to the politicians.

[ERCougar]

Now you are talking about politicians, not scientists. The best scientists interpret and explain the data and leave the policy implications to the politicians.

True. So change my wording to pro-global warming politicians refuse to engage in any kind of debate on the subject, because when they do, they lose badly.

And they tell us to go read the climatology journals.

[woot]

I'll have to check out that site when I get some time. Thanks for the link.

EDIT: I just read the profiles of the six scientists they put on the expelledexposed.com website. I suspected there was more to the stories. However, I'm still not convinced that Guillermo Gonzales or Robert Marks were treated fairly by their employers. Gonzalez' work from 2001-2007 ranks the highest in his department and he's denied tenure because he doesn't collaborate enough? Smells fishy.

Also, what did you think of Dawkins statement at the end of the movie about the origin of life? Stein asks him how he thinks life all began, to which he replies (I'm paraphrasing, but it's close) that an "intriguing" possibility is that a "higher intelligence" from another planet planted the "seeds of life" on earth. How is that materially different from a belief in God? Skeptic, indeed. I was waiting for Stein to call him on that one, but for some reason, he let it go.

Dawkins, like all Europeans, it seems, has REALLY bad teeth.

panspermia (the seeding of life on earth through some extraterrestrial means, either through an alien intelligence or the presence of bacteria on an asteroid or something) has been around forever, and Dawkins threw it out there because it's a fun little idea that nobody really believes in but that is a cool possibility. If he had known he was talking to creationist hacks instead of the objective documentarians looking for a scientific perspective on common religious questions, he wouldn't have brought it up. Also, Ben Stein never interviewed any of the scientists in the movie. He was spliced into the conversations in the editing room, for obvious reasons. He's a well-known hack and the interviews would have been extremely different if the interviewees had known he was involved.

What Dawkins actually believes, or at least accepts as the most plausible explanation, is that the ~3.5 billion years of organic evolution was preceded by a few hundred million years of inorganic evolution. It's complicated but it's come up in various science books over the years enough that I feel pretty comfortable with it. It's certainly the best explanation I've heard of, although I'm all ears if anyone has a better one.

Guillermo Gonzalez is an embarrassment. Even if he did have the most citations or publications or whatever criterion they used to determine he was the most successful of the non-tenured folk in his department, which I'd have to confirm as I seem to remember hearing even that part was made up, reputation is a really big deal and by far what he is most known for is his hypothesis that the earth must have been made by god because god would want his children to be able to observe the universe, and earth has favorable viewing conditions of the universe so therefore god created it. He wrote a whole book about this. There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to start. First of all, N = 1. Second of all, our viewing conditions suck. Can you imagine how spectacular the night sky would look if we were another few billion miles closer to the center of our galaxy? It's hard to imagine how unrelentingly awesome that would be. Thirdly, even if our viewing conditions were amazing, where's the scientific process in jumping from that to god?

This may not be entirely fair, but if you were trying to build a department would want this guy? Other ID arguments aren't any better. Irreducible complexity is completely asinine and yet has been the bread and butter of creationists since the beginning.

You may also have noticed that in the entirety of expelled an attempt was not made to define either evolution or intelligent design. The movie was just anti-intellectual hand-waving and nothing more. It didn't have a point other than to create fear of the establishment for no reason.

If you're interested to know how huge of a retard Ben Stein is, check out youtube for all clips of his saying things like "but evolution doesn't explain gravity or thermodynamics!" and the best one, "Science leads you to killing people." Don't even get me started the holocaust. I imagine the only reason he hasn't been murdered by a gang of upset Jews is because nobody bothered to see his stupid movie.

I could on forever, so if this is interesting let me know and I will but that seems like enough for now.