Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:18292 sci.bio:4564
Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!u1365281
From: u1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Forrest Mimms fired by Scientific American
Message-ID: <1991Mar8.133958.1711@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 8 Mar 91 03:39:58 GMT
References: <17200@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <5472@tellab5.tellabs.com> <1120@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM> <1991Mar7.013827.19891@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: The University of Melbourne
Lines: 46

In article <1991Mar7.013827.19891@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, pcjg7045@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Pramod C. John) writes:
 
> Maybe this should be taken to the courts as a case of 
> "Intellectual Discrimination."  Mimms should be judged on the basis of his 
> work, not on his beliefs.  Who cares if he believes in the tooth fairy, as long
> as he does a satisfactory job!!  Although I think this is a perfect case for 
> the ACLU, I doubt they would do anything either as "Creationism" is involved.

I think this sells the ACLU a bit short. They often take up causes they
don't believe in, not to defend the causes, but to defend a justifiable
freedom of speech.

> I would like to find about the credentials of this guys boss and his beliefs, 
> and idiosyncracies.
> 
> What in the world is the Scientific Community coming to? 
> 
> Thoroughly disgusted in Champaign,
> 
> Pramod John


Science is being made into a religion, for which it is ill-suited. Scientists
need to resist this. This requires accepting and rejecting views on the
basis of evidence, not ideology or politics. As long as someone accepts a
view that patently violates the standards of scientific evidence, one
has to question their sceintific credibility. If this is questioned, and
their work in the area they publish is sound, their irrational quirks have
no bearing on their work. I am not disgusted, but I am disappointed that
the editors of Scientific American would (apparently, assuming the reasons
given for the firing were correct as reported) succumb to commercail rather 
than scientific standards ("there are no politics; it's just the bottom line").

Incidentally, if a witch doctor should demonstrate a sound and repeatable 
technology, based on some theory we find implausible, but which fits
her technology well, in the sense of providing predictions and guiding
new applications, we would do well to look more closely at her theories
to find out what produces this apparent "remarkable coincidence".
Creationism has not had the same success, so we can safely ignore it.
If Mimms were using the credibility of Scientific American to support
his creationism, the case against him would be a good deal stronger.
I haven't seen any evidence he has done this. Just being cited
by creationists is insufficient; Gould has been awarded this honour.

John Collier
U1365281@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu