From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Clueless Classes; Grand Pennsic
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:00:12 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Vajk writes

>Please read this as if it is spoken with a calm, but concerned, voice.

>I have been a class instructor.  I did not feel that Bertram was
>casting aspersions on the whole system.  

I did not say that Bertram was casting aspersions on all instructors.
I said he was casting aspersions on the *system*, by claiming that it
permitted grossly unqualified instructors to teach nonsense.  I did
not even claim that those aspersions were unwarranted, simply that
he did not furnish us with enough information to know if they were
warranted or not.  Which he didn't.  Whether any individual instructor
feels insulted is simply irrelevent to the matter.

>Furthermore, he explicitly stated that there were instructors 
>for whom he some respect (not a quote here).
 
So?  Did I say otherwise?  I said that he was casting aspersions
on the *system*, not the instructors.  Please read what I wrote


>I think if you go back and read it carefully, the post made by
>Bertram presented a specific case, and then posed a more
>general question.  The two were related, but the question was
>not specifically about the individual case.

The general question concerned a problem -- unqualified instructors
teaching crackpot ideas -- which may or may not exist.  So far, all
we have is Bertram's tale of having overhead some crackpot theory in
one particular class.  Now, Bertram seems to be a reasonable guy, and
I'm willing to believe that what he says is probably true.  But the only
way we will know for sure is if Bertram tells us exactly what he overheard,
so that we can judge for ourselves whether the class was really "crackpot"
or not.  

>Yes.  On the other hand, are you a member of that establishment?

Well, my degrees say Bachelor of Biological Sciences and Master
of Science in Advanced Technology.  Whether I am "established"
or not is matter of opinion.

>I can also tell you that when scientists speak they
>speak to each other, not to the public, 

Oh, horse puckey.  Remember last winter when some of the top
scientists at NASA rushed out to predict the "absolutely certainty"
of ozone holes opening up over the continental US this summer, 
based on extrapolations from a single day's data?  Do you think
they called an immediate press conference to speak to scientists?

When scientists speak *as scientists* they speak to each other.
When scientists speak to the public, especially on political or
controversial issues, they sometimes use scientific credentials 
as a cloak for their own biases and prejudices.  Not that scientists
as a whole are any worse than other groups.  Indeed, they are probably
better than most.  But to say that an idea cannot be pigheaded, or
worse, because it is held by some "established" scientific group is
nonsense.  Science advances by questioning established notions, not
by sending those who do to reeducation camps.