Scientist alleges religious discrimination

[Zakuska]

[LeSellers]

This time you are just being a jerk.

Jerks are right, too

[Nemesis]

Jerks are right, too

[44Foxtrot]

I covered this In my lamented, lost reply to your earlier reference to the Nobel Prize, Let me try to reproduce my deathless prose here:

The Nobel Prize was established in 1895. At the time there were less than 250,000 Mormons worldwide, the overwhelming majority of whom were agrarian workers. It took until 1947 to cross into 1 million, and still most Mormons were farmers. If there had been a single Mormon awarded a prize in the first hundred years of the Nobel's existence, it would have been wildly out of proportion compared to other groups, such as the Jews, who have until recently greatly outnumbered LDS, and Jews as a whole are hugely overrepresented in the Nobel statistics.

Your "evidence" is statistically invalid on its face.

If you visited my house, and noted that I had a statute of an elephant on my mantlepiece, and I told you that it was there to repel elephants from the neighborhood, my "evidence" of its efficacy (Look! No elephants!") would be just as valid as your Nobel evidence that Mormons can't do science.

Stargazer,

Sorry you lost your post. I have had the same problems in the past and have now taken to writing posts on a word processer, sticking in a few tags, and pasting them into the message space on the board.

Since you seem interested, I would be happy to continue the discussion. Let's start with your claim that the Nobel Prize evidence I provided is statistically invalid. In fact, such evidence allows one to employ a mathematically and logically valid approach to decision-making.

Imagine that it is your job to predict what religious group will be best represented as Nobel Prize winners over the next five years. You have 24 hours to look at all of the data you can and make your prediction. What do you do?

A scientist would probably turn to Bayesian probability. If you are unfamiliar, this is a type of evidential probability that considers prior system behavior or state of knowledge. It can be used on data sets that are not readily amenable to more conventional statistical or probabilistic methods.

Using Bayesian probability, or more correctly Bayesian estimates, one can make some valid probabilistic statements by simply analyzing the data sets as they appear.

To generate a Bayesian probability or estimate in the case at hand, one first considers the fact that Jews have won hundreds of Nobel prizes, and Mormons have won none. A look at the data also shows that the Jews have won these prizes at a reasonably uniform rate over time (as have Mormons; that rate being zero).

One then considers that these relative rates have held relatively constant over the time period that Mormon and Jewish populations in the world have been reasonably close (same order of magnitude).

One can assign prior probabilities (or priors) based on what is known about the two data sets. This state of knowledge considers the prior rates at which Jews and Mormons win Nobel Prizes. An estimate as to future performance can be made based on the fact that the populations of Mormons and Jews in the world are not likely to undergo radical changes over the next five years.

In other words, it is possible to assign relative probabilities to future events based on known past events. This is a relatively simple calculation and if you wish to see how this is done you can look it up on Wikipedia. (I don't have to tell you how this particular analysis comes out.)

Now let's consider a technology company manager who has a responsibility to his shareholders to hire the best talent available. Let's further assume that this manager is familiar with Bayesian probability. I'm sure you get the point.

To turn the question around, what do you think would be the probability that I, as a technically well qualified atheist, would ever be hired for my brother's Church job at the COB? Right. The Church would simply state that I did not meet the qualifications for the job. My propensity for questioning, critical thinking, and lack of belief would render me an unsuitable candidate.

In our specific case, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, we have made the decision to bring two active Mormons onto our management team. In fact, we recruited both of them. The first was for a position that did not require a strong science background. In the other case, the individual had proven specific scientific expertise that the company needed.

Notwithstanding, the most productive folks in our company, by any objective criteria, are the ex-Mormons.

BTW: You should now be able to see that your elephant analogy is not valid in this case. I will leave it to you to figure out why not.

[toon]

With the understanding that there may be several professional scientists on this board, I have to say that, given a religionist and a secularist with similar academic qualifications, I would tend to hire the secularist. This is more than idle speculation. Turns out that we have built our company on the work of some very talented ex-Mormon and secular Jewish scientists and managers. We have two active Mormons in top management, but they have learned long ago that their religion is not an advantage in our company and they are much better off to check it at the door. They better be available to work on Sunday , if needed, and are often required to travel long distances on very short notice.

. . .

It is in the best interest of science-driven enterprises to look very carefully at religionists as potential employees. If I can ascertain from a job interview (without direct questioning on the subject) that the candidate has a strong religious belief or affiliation, that individual would have to have demonstrated a truly exceptional skill or talent in an area of critical need to the Company to actually get a job offer.

I'm sure the company you work for would be pleased with your public admission of illegal discrimination.

Hope you didn't type this from your work computer -- it's the very thing plaintiffs' lawyers look for in discovery.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

and

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/education/science_scientists.htm

Examples of prominent LDS scientists in the mid-twentieth century include chemist Henry Eyring and physicists Harvey Fletcher and Willard Gardner. Eyring pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry and developed the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions, for which he received the National Medal of Science. He was elected president of the American Chemical Society (1963) and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1965). Fletcher directed research at Bell Labs, where he played a central role in the development of stereophonic reproduction. He was elected president of the American Physical Society (1945). The American Society of Agronomy cited Gardner as "the father of soil physics" for his descriptions of the movement of water through unsaturated soils by reference to capillary potential. The number of Latter-day Saints significantly involved in scientific pursuits continued to grow throughout the twentieth century.

[44Foxtrot]

http://www.famousmormons.net/sci.html

and

http://www.lightplan..._scientists.htm

Examples of prominent LDS scientists in the mid-twentieth century include chemist Henry Eyring and physicists Harvey Fletcher and Willard Gardner. Eyring pioneered the application of quantum mechanics to chemistry and developed the Absolute Rate Theory of chemical reactions, for which he received the National Medal of Science. He was elected president of the American Chemical Society (1963) and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1965). Fletcher directed research at Bell Labs, where he played a central role in the development of stereophonic reproduction. He was elected president of the American Physical Society (1945). The American Society of Agronomy cited Gardner as "the father of soil physics" for his descriptions of the movement of water through unsaturated soils by reference to capillary potential. The number of Latter-day Saints significantly involved in scientific pursuits continued to grow throughout the twentieth century.

Among the 2,100 or so current members of the National Academy of Sciences, are there any LDS?

[44Foxtrot]

I'm sure the company you work for would be pleased with your public admission of illegal discrimination.

Hope you didn't type this from your work computer -- it's the very thing plaintiffs' lawyers look for in discovery.

You should probably read the posts on this thread (again, if necessary) before accusing me of advocating illegal discrimination. When you do so, you will see that I actively recruited two Mormons for management positions in our company. In terms of religious affiliations, the balance of the management team is comprised of ex-Mormons and Jews. So, I don't see our company being hauled into court for employment discrimination any time soon.

Employers are allowed to determine the qualifications and skills required for specific positions, and have the right to select candidates based on whether or not they have the required skills and qualifications.

For example, even if I were a highly skilled webmaster (which I am not), I would not expect to be hired by the LDS Church to work on one of their Church websites. Requiring belief in Mormonism is a reasonable requirement for position that involved generating faith promoting content for a Mormon website.

In the same way, if judgment and critical thinking skills were a requirement for technical position within a company, then a demonstrated deficit in these skills would render one less suitable for the position in which they were required.

Take a look at the OP again. Read the referenced article. If the candidate had been a creationist, apparently all would have agreed that he would have not been qualified for the job as a scientist in which an understanding of astronomy and cosmology was required. So, in the UK case, it is apparent that "young earth" religionists would not be considered a protected class given the required qualifications for the specific job.

______________

And, by the way, when you read the posts on this thread, have a look at the ad hominem attacks, insults, threats and inappropriate language that has been used, including the Foxtrot Uniform name-calling, and note the religious affiliation of the offending authors. Now think about what the overall impression of this thread would be on an individual who had come to this website to learn more about the Mormon Church.

Finally, if you were an employer, and had access to this website, would you be favorably impressed with the thinking skills, writing skills and general behavior of the faithful Mormons those who have posted on this thread?

Would you be eager to hire an individual who was in the habit of addressing total strangers as FU?

Think about it.

[Jeff K.]

When you do so, you will see that I actively recruited two Mormons for management positions in our company. In terms of religious affiliations, the balance of the management team is comprised of ex-Mormons and Jews. So, I don't see our company being hauled into court for employment discrimination any time soon.

That is like saying "I hire Jews because they are good with money". You might be more prejudiced than you are willing to admit.

And yes you can be taken to court for discrimination stating you will not hire someone because of their religious belief.

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

[Jeff K.]

For example, even if I were a highly skilled webmaster (which I am not), I would not expect to be hired by the LDS Church to work on one of their Church websites. Requiring belief in Mormonism is a reasonable requirement for position that involved generating faith promoting content for a Mormon website.

Wrong, a religious organization is not viewed in the same way as a publicly held corporation or even private business.

You hired people? Does your HR know what kind of loaded gun they have pointed at their company when you interview?

[44Foxtrot]

Wrong, a religious organization is not viewed in the same way as a publicly held corporation or even private business.

You hired people? Does your HR know what kind of loaded gun they have pointed at their company when you interview?

You have a point about the different legal status of a Church as compared to public or private corporation when it comes to employee protection under the civil rights act. I tried to find an example that would be clear to individuals on this board. Ethically the issue is the same, but you are correct that there is a legal distinction. I should have chosen a better example.

Nonetheless, you will have to agree that any employer has the right to establish the qualifications necessary for a specific job (so long as those qualifications are reasonably related to the ability to carry out the job). Individuals who demonstrate deficits in the areas required to carry out the job do not have protection under the civil rights act with regard to job discrimination if they are not hired for a position for which they are not qualified.

Let's look at another example, analogous to the one in the OP. Would it be your contention that a university has the obligation to hire and otherwise qualified scientist to a high profile management position in evolutionary biology if that candidate expressed belief in creationism? I hope not. The candidate has demonstrated a deficit in understanding of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology.

What about a high profile management position in geology for a "young earth" believer?

In both these cases, there would be a real the risk of damage to the good standing and reputation of the employer if such individuals were hired.

Beliefs have consequences.

__________

As to your question about hiring; not only do I hire, I also sign the paychecks. The paychecks I sign include those to both in-house and external counsel. As I have already indicated several times, we do have religionists on staff, so I fail to see what the "loaded gun" would be. If an interview and background check of a given candidate shows that the candidate has deficits in required qualifications and skills, as set forth in the job description, that individual is not hired. It is as simple as that.

[44Foxtrot]

That is like saying "I hire Jews because they are good with money". You might be more prejudiced than you are willing to admit.

Sorry. I fail to see the analogy.

And yes you can be taken to court for discrimination stating you will not hire someone because of their religious belief.

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

What I believe I said was that I would be less inclined to hire someone who had demonstrated a lack of judgment and critical thinking skills for a position that required good judgment and critical thinking skills.

[Bruce Schaalje]

Stargazer,

Sorry you lost your post. I have had the same problems in the past and have now taken to writing posts on a word processer, sticking in a few tags, and pasting them into the message space on the board.

Since you seem interested, I would be happy to continue the discussion. Let's start with your claim that the Nobel Prize evidence I provided is statistically invalid. In fact, such evidence allows one to employ a mathematically and logically valid approach to decision-making.

Imagine that it is your job to predict what religious group will be best represented as Nobel Prize winners over the next five years. You have 24 hours to look at all of the data you can and make your prediction. What do you do?

A scientist would probably turn to Bayesian probability. If you are unfamiliar, this is a type of evidential probability that considers prior system behavior or state of knowledge. It can be used on data sets that are not readily amenable to more conventional statistical or probabilistic methods.

Using Bayesian probability, or more correctly Bayesian estimates, one can make some valid probabilistic statements by simply analyzing the data sets as they appear.

etc.

Foxtrot's superficial (not to say completely wrong) understanding of Bayesian statistics is symptomatic of his entire irritating contribution here: poorly informed but almost comically over-confident. He throws in technical-sounding terms, but really has nothing to say other than that in his vastly self-overrated opinion, discrimination against Mormons in science is justified. Foxtrot's superficiality in the area of Mayan and Olmec languages was completely exposed by Brant Gardner in a previous post, though it appears Foxtrot was too obtuse (and, I might say, unscientific) to even realize that his assertions were in tatters. He claims to be some kind of geneticist (actually he claims superior understanding of almost any field - linguistics, archeology, history, and now statistics; I wonder that the Nobel committee has passed over him up to this point) but Brant raised several genetics issues for which he had no answer.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

Don't know. I do know that the LDS are over represented in the sciences though.

[cdowis]

Since you seem interested, I would be happy to continue the discussion. Let's start with your claim that the Nobel Prize evidence I provided is statistically invalid. In fact, such evidence allows one to employ a mathematically and logically valid approach to decision-making.

I would be interested in your analysis of how many homosexuals received this prize. Give us that statistic and your conclusion.

Let us suppose, for example, that the answer is zero.

Tell us how that statistic would affect your decision making process -- would you then be less likely to hire an astronomer who is homosexual. Would you put that forth as "proof" that they make poor scientists, that you would not hire "one of them" as an astronomer.

You now need to run down a long list of "thems" to see which are acceptable by whether one of "them" received this prize -- Asians, blacks, fat people...... You already hinted that a practicing vs nonpracticing Jew was something important to you. But you chose only one such characteristic -- Mormonism, so what about other "thems".

Foxy babes, I think your logic is flawed but let's see what you got.

(I thought that you rested your case. Apparently you changed your mind.)

[44Foxtrot]

Foxtrot's superficial (not to say completely wrong) understanding of Bayesian statistics is symptomatic of his entire irritating contribution here: poorly informed but almost comically over-confident. He throws in technical-sounding terms, but really has nothing to say other than that in his vastly self-overrated opinion, discrimination against Mormons in science is justified. Foxtrot's superficiality in the area of Mayan and Olmec languages was completely exposed by Brant Gardner in a previous post, though it appears Foxtrot was too obtuse (and, I might say, unscientific) to even realize that his assertions were in tatters. He claims to be some kind of geneticist (actually he claims superior understanding of almost any field - linguistics, archeology, history, and now statistics; I wonder that the Nobel committee has passed over him up to this point) but Brant raised several genetics issues for which he had no answer.

Perhaps you should check your facts again. I have never claimed to be a geneticist. What I claimed was that I hold a B.Sc in physics and Ph.D. in neuroendocrinology.

I do not recall the exchange on Olmec and Mayan language. However, I do not claim to be a linguist either.

I also do not claim to be a mathematician or a statistician. However, I use both tools in my work.

Finally, I believe that I stated that I would consider the beliefs of religionists (not specifically Mormons) to determine if they indicated a deficit in qualifications for the specific position in question.

Several examples have been given. None have been refuted.

I have no problem with characterization of my understanding of Bayesian statistics (as I described it) as superficial. What I do have a problem with is claiming that it is completely wrong, or that the outcome I described was in error.

[Bikeemikey]

44Foxtrot: You have created a straw man argument. Everything you have argued is correct if you agree to your two driving premises

that all religious belief falls out side the paramaters of reasonable belief (primarily as it is arrived at by processes of thought that are not rational),

and that all religious believers (with beliefs arrived at through principals of faulty reasoning) will always favor such principals of faulty reasoning in all areas of their life.

Arguments for your first premise are long and convoluted and really have no definitive concluding thesis.

However, let us try and imagine a world where a rational and reasoned grounded individual is willing to believe some religious principles and can also admirably and without compromise engage in the rigors of scientific inquiry. There are two possible conceptions of a religious person who is a scientist.

They believe their religious belief is rational and reasonable - this is the view I think you are claiming fits all scientists. You further claim that if a scientist is willing to believe something at the core of their belief structure to be rational and reasonable when it is clearly not then their veracity as a scientist should be questioned. On this I think I agree with you.

However, a second religious person recognizes that, as a scientist, real and definitive knowledge is a rare (and potentially impossible) thing. Karl Popper (some say the father of modern philosophy of science) best articulated the recognition that science at best effort is really attempting to prove principles wrong, as in reality proving something true is a logical impossibility. Every possible scientific test would have to be completed, and in a universe comprising of something close to infinite variables at best we can hope to recognize those principles science has yet to prove wrong. Anyway I digress. This religious person can surely recognize a space in their experience where of reason and rationality is essential, yet they could also be reasonable in recognizing the current limits of such a frame work. They may chose to entertain views and principles of thought, religion and philosophy that can with out criticism fill spaces where science it self confesses a lack of "true or precise" knowledge or "fact". Such beliefs are not JTB (Justified True Beliefs) in the rigorous sense. But neither are they false or unreasonable as they are also not proven false.

JTB is a good and important standard for belief. It is however not a standard that all belief and action can reach. We should not refuse to engage in actions because we do not have JTB for action. This would lead to a world where little gets done.

It is also possible to consider a person with religious beliefs who may consider such beliefs to be totally isolated from principles of action and thought that infuse their scientific research and vocation. However, I think this you would argue.

It is a fact that science does not have all the answers. It is also a fact that science is more focused on a methodology designed to prove things false rather than prove things true, in fact the later may be impossible from a very rigorous perspective. It is also true that principles of rationality and reason are not identical and that it can be reasonable in some instances to do something not permitted by rational argument, and in some instances rational to be unreasonable (using both rational and reasonable in terms limited to there intended meaning in the philosophical and scientific usage.

I think you should look at your position a little more closely. There is a straw man in there somewhere. Be wary of it as your position at the moment is not founded in principles of reasonable or rational argument.

[44Foxtrot]

(I thought that you rested your case. Apparently you changed your mind.)

I think I just changed it back.

There has been some good discussion on this thread. However, there have also been more misrepresentations, personal attacks, name-calling, insults and inappropriate language from the faithful here than I have seen here in a long time.

Selek's "Foxtrot Uniform" name-calling was particularly offensive. This kind of behavior has no place on any civil message board, let alone one representing the beliefs of the LDS Church.

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot: You have created a straw man argument. Everything you have argued is correct if you agree to your two driving premises

that all religious belief falls out side the paramaters of reasonable belief (primarily as it is arrived at by processes of thought that are not rational),

and that all religious believers (with beliefs arrived at through principals of faulty reasoning) will always favor such principals of faulty reasoning in all areas of their life.

Arguments for your first premise are long and convoluted and really have no definitive concluding thesis.

However, let us try and imagine a world where a rational and reasoned grounded individual is willing to believe some religious principles and can also admirably and without compromise engage in the rigors of scientific inquiry. There are two possible conceptions of a religious person who is a scientist.

They believe their religious belief is rational and reasonable - this is the view I think you are claiming fits all scientists. You further claim that if a scientist is willing to believe something at the core of their belief structure to be rational and reasonable when it is clearly not then their veracity as a scientist should be questioned. On this I think I agree with you.

However, a second religious person recognizes that, as a scientist, real and definitive knowledge is a rare (and potentially impossible) thing. Karl Popper (some say the father of modern philosophy of science) best articulated the recognition that science at best effort is really attempting to prove principles wrong, as in reality proving something true is a logical impossibility. Every possible scientific test would have to be completed, and in a universe comprising of something close to infinite variables at best we can hope to recognize those principles science has yet to prove wrong. Anyway I digress. This religious person can surely recognize a space in their experience where of reason and rationality is essential, yet they could also be reasonable in recognizing the current limits of such a frame work. They may chose to entertain views and principles of thought, religion and philosophy that can with out criticism fill spaces where science it self confesses a lack of "true or precise" knowledge or "fact". Such beliefs are not JTB (Justified True Beliefs) in the rigorous sense. But neither are they false or unreasonable as they are also not proven false.

JTB is a good and important standard for belief. It is however not a standard that all belief and action can reach. We should not refuse to engage in actions because we do not have JTB for action. This would lead to a world where little gets done.

It is also possible to consider a person with religious beliefs who may consider such beliefs to be totally isolated from principles of action and thought that infuse their scientific research and vocation. However, I think this you would argue.

It is a fact that science does not have all the answers. It is also a fact that science is more focused on a methodology designed to prove things false rather than prove things true, in fact the later may be impossible from a very rigorous perspective. It is also true that principles of rationality and reason are not identical and that it can be reasonable in some instances to do something not permitted by rational argument, and in some instances rational to be unreasonable (using both rational and reasonable in terms limited to there intended meaning in the philosophical and scientific usage.

I think you should look at your position a little more closely. There is a straw man in there somewhere. Be wary of it as your position at the moment is not founded in principles of reasonable or rational argument.

I think yours is a well-reasoned response that is also on point. As you can see from my last post, I decided to leave this thread before I saw yours.

Since I sort of promised cdowis that I would leave his thread (for a second time), I really need to go. I would be willing to discuss this further on a new thread if you feel that it is important.

[Bikeemikey]

Nah, I am all good. Start another one if you want to. I am not sure how much time I will really have to respond.

Interesting discussion though.

Later.

[Bruce Schaalje]

Foxtrot, for the record:

Perhaps you should check your facts again. I have never claimed to be a geneticist. What I claimed was that I hold a B.Sc in physics and Ph.D. in neuroendocrinology.

I

[44Foxtrot]

I stand by my statement that your analysis is completely wrong.

So you are claiming that the fact that Jews have won hundreds of Nobel Prizes and Mormons have won none is of no value whatsoever in estimating the relative probability that a Jew will win a Nobel Prize in the future as compared to a Mormon?

Sorry, but such a claim is silly on the face of it. Hope you have the good sense to stay away from the race track.

(With apologies to cdowis)

[Bikeemikey]

I think that in general it does make sense that we will see a declining relationship between awards from the scientific community to scientists professing strong religious views and beliefs. The Noble Prize arena will likely be one area that we will continue to see this trend. This however, as has already been stated, is a result of a current views, not the cause of them.

[Bruce Schaalje]

So you are claiming that the fact that Jews have won hundreds of Nobel Prizes and Mormons have won none is of no value whatsoever in estimating the relative probability that a Jew will win a Nobel Prize in the future as compared to a Mormon?

Sorry, but such a claim is silly on the face of it. Hope you have the good sense to stay away from the race track.

(With apologies to cdowis)

Foxtrot:

Thanks for your concern about me getting in trouble at the racetrack. No need to worry. I don

[Jeff K.]

Let's look at another example, analogous to the one in the OP. Would it be your contention that a university has the obligation to hire and otherwise qualified scientist to a high profile management position in evolutionary biology if that candidate expressed belief in creationism? I hope not. The candidate has demonstrated a deficit in understanding of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology.

What about a high profile management position in geology for a "young earth" believer?

In both these cases, there would be a real the risk of damage to the good standing and reputation of the employer if such individuals were hired.

You mean like the owners of In-N-Out Burger, born again Christians who offer a great burger (with little scriptures under their milkshakes) Privately held, one of the most sought after business models here in Southern California, good producmt, good management.

By the way, they hire Mormons too.

You seem to suffer from a desperate need to justify what is basically unjustifiable, both in the eyes of civil rights in this nation, and ethically.