Mormon Representation in the Sciences

[Jason]

Perhaps I missed it, but did Foxtrot ever demonstrate that Mormons are under-represented in the scientific fields?

Or did he, by chance, demonstrate that scientific ability is directly connected with the ability to think critically?

Or that scientists are less prone to act irrationally than the rest of us?

I would like to see it if he did.

[ELF1024]

Perhaps I missed it, but did Foxtrot ever demonstrate that Mormons are under-represented in the scientific fields?

Or did he, by chance, demonstrate that scientific ability is directly connected with the ability to think critically?

Or that scientists are less prone to act irrationally than the rest of us?

I would like to see it if he did.

I suppose it depends on the scientist, there are some of the Climate Scientists that seem to act rather irrationally....

[thesometimesaint]

ELF1024:

Scientists individually are just as prone to irrationality as any reasonably competent person is. The saving grace is that they are reasonably competent.

If the plumbing in my home needs fixing I don't call a heart surgeon, and if the plumbing in my heart needs fixing I don't call a home plumber. Though it is all just plumbing.

[44Foxtrot]

If I recall correctly, there was a thread in which FT mentioned he had done something at work resulting in the firing or harassing of an LDS worker in his company, which, upon reading, struck me as something legally actionable. I wish I knew where that post was.

If FT is sincere in his desire to know if the hiring manager in the OP is behaving rationally and prudently, which is a legal question, here is the test: reveal your real world identity and let the chips fall where they may in court.

You are mistaken. You can go to my first post on this thread, follow the link there to the previous thread, and read my original post on the issue for yourself.

If you follow the thread, you will see that just the opposite is true. You will see that we have hired (I have hired) two active LDS and that they are both doing well. We have not had to fire any LDS employees, ever. Although we have had two leave the Church over the last year or so.

We have had to take disciplinary actions with religionists on staff. One ended in a buy-out and effective dismissal of an evangelical religionist. Despite repeated warnings, this individual continued to bring up God and his religion at pretty much every opportunity. He would witness to others, insist that prayer be said over food at restaurants and the like. We received an angry call and an e-mail from an overseas client regarding his behavior on a recent business trip, and that was the last straw. On that little adventure alone he may have cost us a project worth more than $40 million. A company of our size can't take too many hits of that magnitude.

You will note from the first two posts on this thread that I have spoken to our attorney regarding some of the assertions made on this board. Our attorney is perfectly comfortable with our employment policies and practices.

[Log]

You are mistaken. You can go to my first post on this thread, follow the link there to the other thread and read my original post on the issue for yourself.

Neither of these are the threads I am referring to.

You will note from the first two posts on this thread that I have spoken to our attorney regarding some of the assertions made on this board. Our attorney is perfectly comfortable with our employment policies and practices.

If you say so.

[44Foxtrot]

Neither of these are the threads I am referring to.

.

Okay. To set your mind at ease, I have never fired a Momon, or anyone else, except for cause and with board approval.

And I have never knowingly harassed anyone at work.

[44Foxtrot]

It is astonishing.

And the funny thing is, it is quite possible that those scientists who are theists and are able to reconcile science and theism are actually substantially smarter than those who can't. After all, it's really not that hard to do. It is one thing to be unable to figure out how to reconcile science and theism yourself, but quite another to think that those who can figure it out are delusional idiots, and somehow much more stupid than those who can't figure it out.

Bill,

Exactly how is it that one can convince himself that demonstrably false religious truth claims are "true" without engaging in delusional behaviors and beliefs?

[Log]

Okay. To set your mind at ease, I have never fired a Momon, or anyone else, except for cause and with board approval.

And I have never knowingly harassed anyone at work.

No, it appears I was indeed mistaken.

[Nathair/|\]

Bill,

Exactly how is it that one can convince himself that demonstrably false religious truth claims are "true" without engaging in delusional behaviors and beliefs?

Please give an example of a demonstrably false religious truth claim including the proof that it is false. Please avoid anything like "God said it isn't true" in your proof.

Yours under the unconvinced oaks,

Nathair /|\

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,

If you read the post. you will see that I would guess that everyone probably has some beliefs that are delusional. Some have a lot more than others.

Yes, you've mentioned this repeatedly. I've pointed out that I have labeled many of your remarks in this thread as delusional as well, by your own definition.

Once the evidence shows that our beliefs are delusional, we should be capable of changing them.

Right, you've offered some anecdotal evidence and cited a few obscure books and a few talks from LDS General Authorities (without, by the way, explaining any particularly damning specifics from these things. I join you in decrying "pseudoscience" like the Kolob Theorem book and even have examples to add to the list (things like JFeS's views on evolution or Meldrum's misuse of DNa and historical sources). But since I'm a Mormon it is difficult to accept your other simplistic blanket premises about Mormons being delusional in general, and not worthy of positions in particular research projects or schools because they hold delusional beliefs. But my "delusional" beliefs have not prevented me, a Mormon, from agreeing with critical assessments of things like the Kolob book, etc. Further, I know many Mormons who are in my same position. I am a living and breathing contradiction, a piece of living and breathing and thinking evidence which you appear unwilling to allow to change your belief. Thus, you are deluded here as far as I can tell. (But to you I am already deluded, so what does one make of an accusation of delusion from a person considered to be delusional!?)

You are right about spending too much time. While correlation alone does not demonstrate causation, there are a lot of other factors in the mix here that make a pretty strong case for a cause and effect relationship.

Sure there are a lot of other factors, I believe that. At the same time, it seems to me that you're being massively selective in what "factors" you've included in your consideration.

You are incorrect in your claim that hypothesis generation on the basis of multiple and consistent correlations along with a mechanism for the observed effect is unscientific.

I never suggested such a thing was unscientific. What I found unscientific (granted, by a standard that I don't think is philosophically possible, but is sometimes accepted by folks who think of themselves as "scientific) was your sloppy approach to the whole question. In other words, I take issue with the "consistent" bit of your "multiple and consistent correlations," and question your ability to responsibly observe them with the mechanisms you've implied in this discussion.

We are talking here about evidence - not proof - yet.

I don't understand why you think I need this to be explained here. Maybe because you think I'm a poor little deluded guy? Beats me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you follow the thread, you will see that just the opposite is true. You will see that we have hired (I have hired) two active LDS and that they are both doing well. We have not had to fire any LDS employees, ever. Although we have had two leave the Church over the last year or so.

It's strange, you have a few personally-known counter-examples, but you just seem to assign a certain weight to them which overcomes a their potential contrary conclusion. You have 2 deluded Mormon folks that you've hired (strange that they made it that far being so heavily surrounded by suffocating anti-science), but ostensibly they, like two other employed Mormons who we are just now hearing about, are on their way out of Mormonism, overcoming their delusions based on the sort of evidence-troubled deconversion narrative you experienced?

We have had to take disciplinary actions with religionists on staff. One ended in a buy-out and effective dismissal of an evangelical religionist. Despite repeated warnings, this individual continued to bring up God and his religion at pretty much every opportunity. He would witness to others, insist that prayer be said over food at restaurants and the like. We received an angry call and an e-mail from an overseas client regarding his behavior on a recent business trip, and that was the last straw. On that little adventure alone he may have cost us a project worth more than $40 million. A company of our size can't take too many hits of that magnitude.

That would bug me too.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Exactly how is it that one can convince himself that demonstrably false religious truth claims are "true" without engaging in delusional behaviors and beliefs?

This glaringly obvious question begging exhibits precisely the sort of testimony-bearing approach which helped lead to the dismissal of your Evangelical acquaintance, I reckon. It's really annoying, I can see why you thought it was a hindrance to your work and why you weren't sorry to see him dismissed. It seems like such a total waste of time to engage with such an uncritically self-assured person.

[Calm]

Bill,

Definitions of delusion include:

[LifeOnaPlate]

Please give an example of a demonstrably false religious truth claim including the proof that it is false. Please avoid anything like "God said it isn't true" in your proof.

Yours under the unconvinced oaks,

Nathair /|\

I assume he could try something like insisting that you demonstrably prove to his satisfaction the existence of God. Then when you fail (which you certainly will), he'll say this constitutes his proof that the existence of God is demonstrably false. All the while all of the definitions will simply be assumed from beginning to end, so we don't even realize we are talking past each other and wasting a lot of time doing it! He's simply on foundation-less philosophical grounds without recognizing it. But depending on the type of science he's doing philosophical questions might seem as silly as religious ones.

[Jaybear]

I would say that believing that scripture is meant to be a scientific text testable by scientific methods with meaningful scientific results is labouring under the delusion by your own definitional choices.

Can you be more specific? Take for example the religious claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans, placed on this planet some 6,000 years ago.

Are you saying that its delusional to believe that the claim that man arrived on earth some 6,000 ago can be tested scientifically?

[Calm]

And as an example of what Oberg and Sessions were talking about in this latest article: The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe by Lynn M. Hilton available from Deseret Books. This latter piece of work, actively promoted by Deseret Book (the official bookstore of Mormon culture) is one of my favorite pieces of the kind of pseudoscience that arises from Mormon culture.

This book came out when I was working in a church bookstore some years back. I looked at it one lunchtime and thought it was pretty useless. I was not alone in that not one book was bought that I was aware of during my years there. Simply because a book is "promoted" by DB doesn't mean it actually is part of Mormon culture, there are plenty of DB books that end up getting sent back as unsaleable. That it might have found some market in Utah is not surprising, given enough people any inexpensive book will sell it seems, the reviews seem to be evenly split between really good and really bad, indicating imo that people are approaching it in significantly different ways, from the reviews those LDS who pay attention to the science are trashing it for the most part, those who do not seem to focus more on using it as scriptural interpretation rather than a science text.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

That is the problem with Foxtrot's use of exclusion by definition.

http://www.definedelusions.net/definitions.html

DELUSION

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person

[Jaybear]

calmoriah:

That is the problem with Foxtrot's use of exclusion by definition.

http://www.definedelusions.net/definitions.html

DELUSION

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Delusional Thinking has a specific meaning in my field of science, and firmly held beliefs however wrong are not necessarily delusional.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html

[44Foxtrot]

calmoriah:

That is the problem with Foxtrot's use of exclusion by definition.

http://www.definedel...efinitions.html

DELUSION

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person

[Jason]

Wouldn't you have to understand the Kolob cosmology in the first place before you could demonstrate that it is false?

I'm really having a hard time coming up with a "demonstratably false" LDS belief - probably because it's really hard to prove a negative.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you be more specific? Take for example the religious claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans, placed on this planet some 6,000 years ago.

Are you saying that its delusional to believe that the claim that man arrived on earth some 6,000 ago can be tested scientifically?

How do you interpret that scripture in your own religious perspective, Jaybear?

[LifeOnaPlate]

calmoriah:

That is the problem with Foxtrot's use of exclusion by definition.

http://www.definedelusions.net/definitions.html

DELUSION

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person

[Garden Girl]

I'm really having a hard time coming up with a "demonstratably false" LDS belief - probably because it's really hard to prove a negative.

This was my reaction also, Jason... 44Foxtrot seems to like the term "demonstrably false" and so I'd ask... show me something that is, in fact, demonstrably false... he can offer his opinion (his right to do so) all he wants, but that does not make his opinions correct.

I, OTOH, cannot demonstrably prove the witnesses of the Spirit that I have received again and again in regard to the truthfulness of the gospel and its doctrines. All I can do is try and explain my experience, including the "still small voice" that is like no other... but fills my heart and mind with an absolute clarity. And I am aware that my attempts to explain would engender mocking and would fall on deaf ears of those who do not have "ears to hear." So be it.

GG

[Jaybear]

How do you interpret that scripture in your own religious perspective, Jaybear?

I am not sure what you mean. I was speaking of the religious claim/belief shared by some 40% of this country, not a specific scripture.