Just on principle, whether you believe it or not, doesn't it seem like bad science to make subscription to a loyalty oath to any particular theory, no matter how well-supported, the requirement for admittance into a professional science? And doesn't it bother anyone else that this person's idea of a scientific theory is that a theory mutates into a fact after a certain amount of evidence has been gathered in support of it. I teach my students that theories and facts are two different things. Theories are used to organize and explain facts (observations) and provide a basis for predicting new hypotheses. They are neither true or false; they are either useful in providing an explanation of the known facts and in generating new hypotheses or they are not.
For example, of course, someone may say, all of psychology is based on evolutionary theory and therefore, unless you agree with the tenets of evolutionary psychology, you cannot be a scientific psychologist. My whole training goes against such a forced belief. Science is supposed to be based on skepticism and open-mindedness. I realize that few individuals achieve that level of ideal science but the practice of science itself should certainly move toward that ideal. Rick Dr. Rick Froman Associate Professor of Psychology John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 (479) 524-7295 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/rfroman.asp -----Original Message----- From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: letters of recommendation and 'belief' in evolution Here's the whole thing, with all of the context (just to make it clear that he's not ONLY asking this evolution question). And notice that he's asking them to assert that they believe in evolution, not asking them to deny any religious beliefs. In my opinion, that makes a huge difference. Paul Smith Alverno College Milwaukee >From Dr. Dini's website: ======================= Letters of Recommendation Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria: Criterion 1 You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me. Criterion 2 I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways: 1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions. 2) by enrolling in an Honors' section taught by me. 3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only). 4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee. Criterion 3 If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences. Why do I ask this question? Let's consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below. Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one's understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist? [Contact information removed - P.C.S.] Citations Ewald, P.W. 1993. Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298. Ewald, P.W. 1993. The evolution of virulence. Scientific American 268:86-98. Morgan, E. 1990. The scars of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 196. Myers, J.H. and L.E. Rothman. 1995. Virulence and transmission of infectious diseases in humans and insects: evolutionary and demographic patterns. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5):194-198. Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams. 1994. Why we get sick. Times Books, New York, pp. 291. _____1997. Evolutionary biology in the medical curriculum -- what every physician should know. BioScience 47(10):664-666. Rose, Michael. 1998. Darwin's Spectre. Princeton University Press, Princteon, NJ. pp. 233. Seachrist, L. 1996. Only the strong survive: the evolution of a tumor favors the meanest, most aggressive cells. Science News 49:216-217. Stearns, S.C. (ed.) 1999. Evolution in Health and Disease. Oxford University Press. pp. 328. Trevathan, W.R., Smith, E.O. and J.J. McKenna (eds.). 1999. Evolutionary Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 480. Williams, G.C. and R.M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66:1-22. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
