This approach strikes me as too complicated. I think that the only reasonable measure would be to determine whether the nominee had taken science courses at an elite university.
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of David W. Opderbeck
Sent: Thu 10/27/2005 7:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
"Science, which bases judgements solely on the evidence, is the antithesis of
religion and is clearly relevant."
Balderdash. First, science doesn't base judgements solely on the evidence. Science is as rife with non-empirical, non-falsifiable foundational propositions as any other way of knowing. Second, science isn't the "antithesis of religion," particularly from a historical perspective, which must acknowledge the important role religious thought, particularly the religiously-derived belief in an ordered universe, played in both the western and Islamic scientific traditions.
"How does being descended from a monkey affect your judicial philosophy?"
This question, of course, has nothing at all to do with the nominee's philosophy of science. A more honest question would be: "do you accept without reservation the non-observable, non-falsifiable proposition that life arose solely by chance operating through materialistic processes?" At least then it would be clear that this is a faith-based litmus test rather than something having to do with "science" or the work of the Supreme Court. And, if the nominee answered that question "yes," we could ask some follow up questions, such as "why should we then care about things like Constitutions, laws, or the public good?"
David W. Opderbeck
Assistant Professor of Business Law
Baruch College, City University of New York
(646) 312-3602
[log in to unmask]
Keith Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk" <[log in to unmask]>
10/27/2005 06:43 PM
Please respond to "Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk"
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject: USSC Nominee Monkey Business
Here is a post from another list where I lurk. A different perspective on
Supreme Court nominee credentials.
Keith
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Now That's An Interesting Question!
From: "Mike Palij" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, October 21, 2005 1:10 pm
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "Mike Palij" <[log in to unmask]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of you might be familiar with Bob Park, a physicist,
author of "Voodoo Science", and "publisher" of the weekly
e-newsletter "What's New" (WN). Below is an excerpt from
this week's issue which contains an interesting question that
one of WN's readers has suggested should be asked of
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[log in to unmask]
******************************************************
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 21 Oct 05 Washington, DC
1. SUPREME QUESTION: WHAT ARE THE NOMINEE'S VIEWS ON SCIENCE?
Our request for questions that should be asked of Supreme Court
nominees to elicit their views on science drew a huge response.
Traditionally, nominees are not questioned about their religious
views on the assumption that an oath to uphold the constitution
makes the nominee's religious views irrelevant. Science, which
bases judgements solely on the evidence, is the antithesis of
religion and is clearly relevant. The WN staff felt the question
that best captured the consensus of our readers' views in the
fewest number of words was from Abi Soffer at SLAC:
"How does being descended from a monkey affect your
judicial philosophy?"
WN will include more suggested questions each week until the
confirmation process in the Senate is over.
Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [log in to unmask]
|
