Diogenes the Cynic & JRDelirious,
You may have missed my disclaimer. As noted therein, I was only addressing the specific argument that the fact that the student dropped out of the class impacts the case. I was not addressing any other issue.
—Their WORK is supposed to be what is judged. Not them. —
It may be possible to judge someone’s personality apart from their work. I would personally advocate doing so. However, if their work is judged and found to be consistently poor, in the end they will be considered to be a poor researcher. That reflects on the aspect of their personality that they might identify as “researcher.”
—Then why not simply point out the flaws in the methodology or conclusions, instead of trying to lay it at any particular door? —
One should not assume that flaws in research stem from any particular source without evidence to support that assumption. In the event that the bias stems from religious belief, criticizing the research (without making any claims as to why the research is inaccurate) may result in accusations of religious discrimation.
—Is it your contention that religious beliefs are the only things that every compromise someone’s work?—
It certainly is not. Beliefs undoubtedly (IMHO) compromise work to a much lesser extent than, for example, money, desire for renown, pressure to produce publications …
—But that’s not science. That’s personality. —
In a sense, yes. Saying “that individual is a poor researcher” is a commentary on a very small portion of his/her personality. It is also, to a much greater extent and more specifically, a commentary on his/her scientific capability. I personally believe that individuals (in this case, researchers) are much more than their research. I do not base my evaluation of their personality on the quality of their research. I would never advocate doing so. However, in my professional life, I might avoid working with that individual strictly because of their history of compromised work.
—It may be possible to judge someone’s personality apart from their work.----
Of course it’s possible. But science has both the time and the duty to examine all falsifiable ideas, independant of who is putting them forth. I’m not objecting to using metrics that gauge personality and quality of someone’s work for personal or political reasons. But I don’t think such metrics have much value to the actual project of science, and they certainly shouldn’t be what this prof’s rules might well be: judging someone indepedant of the quality of their work, only on their beliefs.
—I don’t think such metrics have much value to the actual project of science, and they certainly shouldn’t be what this prof’s rules might well be: judging someone indepedant of the quality of their work, only on their beliefs.—
handshake Apos, we’ve worked ourselves down to agreement. If a student meets the prof’s other criteria for getting a LOR, but the prof won’t give it because of the student’s religious beliefs, something’s wrong. In this specific case, of course, the student didn’t meet the other criteria. It would be contentious if he had, and then the remaining criterion required him to deny his beliefs. In that circumstance, I’d be inclined to view the prof as a bit of a jerk … safe view, since many profs are jerks … and get my LOR from someone more aware of the less conflict-oriented methods of interaction between science and religion.
This was my first participation in a GD thread. Thanks for discussing with me.
Then, I’m afraid GD is not for you. 