NASA Public-Affairs Appointee Resigns in Disgrace 698
belmolis writes "George C. Deutsch, who tried to muzzle top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and ordered NASA web designers to add the word 'theory' to every mention of the Big Bang, has resigned. The New York Times reports
that NASA declines to discuss the reasons for his resignation, but that it came the same day that Texas A&M University, from which Deutsch claimed on his resume to have graduated, revealed that he had attended the university but did not complete his degree."
The New York Times reports it today, but as of yesterday, it was the Times that had unquestioningly passed along the falsehood of Deutsch's graduation, and it was the blog Scientific Activist whose investigation revealed he'd left before graduating to work on the Bush reelection campaign. For more on the 24-year-old political appointee's interesting viewpoints, see World O' Crap; on Monday, we covered the anger over his attempts to squelch science -- something that, sadly, Jim Hansen has gotten used to.
Good News and Bad News (Score:4, Insightful)
The increasing availability and ease of access of information is making it increasingly difficult to get away with lying.
Good news for the people, bad news for governments.
On a related note, that same increasing availability is starting to render traditional news outlets [nytimes.com] obselete. No wonder they're so upset [slashdot.org].
Number of points (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Deutsch is young. True, while at 24, Deutsch is young, that really does not say anything about his ability to be a spokesperson for science policy....if he is capable of representing the science for NASA and not necessarily a political agenda.
2. Deutsch did not graduate college. The fact that he is not a college graduate does not in of itself eliminate him from a spokespersons job. However, the major issue is that he lied about his graduation and because of that lapse in integrity should not be trusted.
3. Scientific integrity. NASA is an organization that should be proud of its scientific accomplishments and should care enough to represent those achievements to the world through the best possible spokespersons possible. Having these positions as appointed posts rather than earned posts or hires based on merit circumvents this process.
4. Motivations. Placing limits on science by appointing sycophantic toadies who are carrying out a politically and/or religiously motivated agenda is becoming a recurring theme in this administration which leads one to suspect potentially other agendas.
The Big Bang (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
86 Evangelical Leaders Join to Fight Global Warming [nytimes.com]
Could this actually mean that well intentioned christians are actually beginning to crawl out from under the thumb of the right-wing extremists like Dobson, Robertson, Bush, etc?
I know this is only a small beginning and may be offering false hope, but at least its better than the complete lack of any hope for American socieity I'd been feeling recently.
It's people like this... (Score:2, Insightful)
With Increasing Information comes.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Big Bang (Score:5, Insightful)
What's going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bad enough that a 24 year old was trying to tell NASA what to do but he never even graduated college. Whoever gave him that job should be fired along with him.
On a more personal note, Serves you right you dozy eejit.
Re:The Big Bang (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been 24 years old. And, at that age, you think you know EVERYTHING. And, I have been involed in politics (when I was about 24 years old, as a matter of fact). Guess what? In politics, when you are on the winning side and you get a political appointee job, you have a huge "ego factor".
A 24-year old political appointee is, almost by definition, a cocky S.O.B. (not to say all 24-year old political appointees are cocky, but there is a high probability). Asking him to "keep his feet calm" is like asking a shark to ignore the chum in the water.
Please allow me to say: (Score:5, Insightful)
Disgrace and shame is better than folks like this deserve, but it's the best we can realistically hope to see. The appointment of political officers to oversee scientific speech smacks of the bad old days of the Cold War, and I mean the BAD guys.
Unfortunately, this is only one small win for the side of truth, justice, and the American way. We've still got a *long* way to go before honesty and integrity are restored to the government.
Re:Theory not a bad order (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the problem here is not the description of the Big Bang as a theory (clearly correct) but that the word is used in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by confusing the colloquial meaning of "theory" (i.e. not much more than a guess) with the scientific meaning of "theory". I'm betting that this guy didn't insist on NASA desribing rocketry as a "theory".
Appointees (Score:5, Insightful)
They lie? Don't all politicians? They're too white? They're too left? They're too right? They're unqualified? They're qualified but they don't have real life experience? They're cronies?
Let's look at how this works in a free market:
John Johnson hires his son John Johnson, Jr, to help run his company. Nepotism. John I dies. John Jr takes over, and the general history of business shows us the John Jr has never felt pain, so he doesn't work as hard as he should. Business fails. The market solution is to give the person with the best output and lowest price the work. John Jr rarely will be that person.
In the market of government, we don't really have much to control. We can't vote with our dollars OR vote with our ballot. We can't directly affect the actions of the appointee, and some appointees are so powerful it amazes me that the country doesn't cry foul more often (see Ben Bernanke).
Positions of power are better suited to be competitive rather than elected, and better elected rather than appointed. Do you feel better when "your man" is the appointee? Do you forget all the damage that occurs when it isn't "your guy?"
doesn't make a difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Big Bang (Score:3, Insightful)
An idea that has not been supported by facts yet would be a hypothesis.
So it would be better worded the Christian Hypothesis.
OOOHH I know! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's start with the President! *ducks*
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
There are exceptions, with no sharp cut off where "Law" became deprecated, but it's usage is far more of a social and philosophical phenomenon than a scientific one.
Got your degree with him too? (Score:3, Insightful)
A theory is a model.
Re:Number of points (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I think his scientific knowledge speaks for itself [salon.com].
Placing limits on science by appointing sycophantic toadies who are carrying out a politically and/or religiously motivated agenda is becoming a recurring theme in this administration which leads one to suspect potentially other agendas.
I think that has become all-too-clear lately. And, more than that, it's not only science that's under assault. This administration has moved with disturbing efficiency in removing ANY dissent of ANY kind from its "message."
Intelligence doesn't support the goal, you say? No problem, just strong-arm 'em and appoint some toadies to cook the numbers to say what we want them too! Then later, when someone complains that we were full of shit, we just say "Hey, we were working with the best information we had at the time." Brilliant!
-Eric
Re:I Work For NASA and Most of This is Patently Fa (Score:5, Insightful)
---Oh really? What do you do exactly?
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
---That's cool because I wouldn't want this to distract you from your work.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
----Welcome to Slashdot!!
But trust me.... You don't.
----Oh really? Is this some kind of Jedi mind trick?
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
-----Well, reality is a subjective thing these days, but sounding smart is an art form.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
---As we all know that everybody reads Slashdot as fact - and there is no room for dissent!
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
----Well, it would be nice if you could give us an example here because it sounds like you are doing the same.
Cuz some
---Sad, isn't it? But those people aren't the ones we are worried about, just the guys who resign in disgrace for making us try to believe lies that we hear from them.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
You're in good company. Lord Macaulay in his 1841 speech to parliament on the issue of copyright extension had to deal with exactly this misunderstanding of what a "theory" is:
My honourable and learned friend talks very contemptuously of those who are led away by the theory that monopoly makes things dear. That monopoly makes things dear is certainly a theory, as all the great truths which have been established by the experience of all ages and nations, and which are taken for granted in all reasonings, may be said to be theories. It is a theory in the same sense in which it is a theory that day and night follow each other, that lead is heavier than water, that bread nourishes, that arsenic poisons, that alcohol intoxicates.
Always happy to plug one of my favorite writers. Macaulay's riposte probably works better than yours because he uses more homely examples.
If I had to put the missing point in a nutshell, I'd do it this way: in science, not all theories are true, but all truths are theories. Of course it's a bit of an overstatement, in that one can certainly talk about an individual fact in isolation. But as soon as you try to connect facts, you have a theory.
Of course religion has its theories as well, which are called "doctrines". For example you have the doctrine of original sin, and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which I believe any fundamentalist should be familiar with. These are, within a certain scope "testable", in the sense they can be compared to scriptural sources. The difference between a doctrine and a theory is the ultimate test, the foundation upon which all other tests reside.
In religion, this is mystical experience. The Christian experiences the Bible as a manifestation of God's grace and love, and therefore accepts it as authoritative. In science the foundation is sensory experience.
The reason then that many thoughtful religious people reject fundamentalism is that by confusing science and religion, you are in a sense denying grace itself. Fundamentalism is often mixed up with mystical movements like pentacostalism; indeed many individuals are both. But these are inconsistent. Fundamentalism is a form of pseudo-rationalism.
Can we please... (Score:2, Insightful)
You lose the luxury of being considered "just a kid" at age 18. Period.
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
It implies a source of the bang that makes Creationists salivate.
How so? By admitting that we don't understand how it came about and what caused it? For someone to think that this supports creationism, there are two issues. Firstly, this is a "God of the Gaps" argument. This is just a statement about their disbelief that science will ever provide explanations for everything so they fall back to their default position, "God did it" which still explains or proves nothing. Secondly, "what occured before the Big Bang" cannot be answered with the creationist position of "God did" as the immediate response is "what occured before God?". The creationist might say that God has always been present which is no more or less valid that saying that the Big Bang has always been present (Big Bang --> Big Crunch --> Big Bang .... etc) so neither position has been shown to be any more valid.
So to say that the Big Bang is no longer popular with the evolutionist debate crowd, you must be referering to the sophists who debate for fun as opposed to scientists/evolutionists who still very much believe in the Big Bang.
Uh, it IS a theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, last time I checked, the Big Bang IS just a theory, just as black holes are. They may be credible theories, theories with a lot of evidence, but are still just theories. There is nothing wrong with not proclaiming a theory to be fact.
Re:Just one apparatchik -- there are others (Score:5, Insightful)
But he represents a more fundamental problem: the way we govern our country is broken. Given that, it's not surprising that the government is dysfunctional in the realm of space science. It's dsyfunctional period.
Look, the guy's 24 years old and he gets a political appointment? Now prove to me this country isn't being run by an aristocracy. It used to be connected people got their kids internships, or made congressional pages. They didn't get them policy level poliltical appointments.
I heard that (Score:3, Insightful)
I invite them to test the theory of gravitational attraction by jumping off the top of a very tall building. After all, if they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they'd be able to land safely, right?
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention there are also other theories that attempt to explain gravity. Like the Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory, or the Rosen bimetric theory.
You could also point out that a law that merely describes how something acts--while useful, necessarily should be considered only part of the picture. How and/or why should be considered important questions. And if you can get them to admit that, then you might be able to leverage that.
Only a theory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apointer needs to resign too... (Score:5, Insightful)
This event is a disgrace to the entire scientific community in the United States.
Re:"He did a heckuva job!" (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans see the cronyism, they see the complete abandonment of most conservative values, they see the wasted money and I just don't think they care. They're in power and want to use that power and noble ideals fall quickly when the perqs of power are in reach.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:2, Insightful)
> does not imply that I have to accept all theories.
You make a good point, but the parent wasn't really saying that. He was pointing out that people are confused about what constitutes a "theory" in this sense. Pointing out some of the better-known scientific theories may help to illustrate what the word means.
Re:Can we please... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know -- at an agency like NASA which presumably has a large number of career scientists who have spent decades in their field (some of whom have spent over a decade on a single project like Stardust) -- a 24-year old, politically appointed, non-college graduate who tries to put Bush's political spin on science doesn't deserve anything better than kid. And, in fact, probably deserves worse.
A grossly underqualified person with no real world experience telling people many years his senior and way more qualified they need to call the Big Bang a theory (and whatever else he did) doesn't deserve anything but contempt and scorn.
Compared to what can only be called 'elder statesmen' of science, this guy is a kid. In this sense, 'kid' is used in the diminutive to refer to someone who is new to a field and doesn't have a lot of experience.
Heck, rookie quarterbacks get referred to as 'kid', even if they're in their early 20's.
Re: Uh, it IS a theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Except when you single out one theory that shows that a politically powerful religious group's beliefs are a bunch of hooey, and let all the other theories pass unremarked.
Bush Times (Score:2, Insightful)
But then, the Times allowed its frontpage cheerleader for the Iraq "WMD" War, Judith Miller, to avoid the August 2004 Federal subpoenas into her role outing Valerie Plame, the CIA/WMD agent debunking the Iraq WMD lies sending us to war. Her trial likely would have meant another few points less for Bush in November 2004.
After these yearlong delays escorting Bush through the 2004 election, their final revelations are met with Bush's highest disapproval ratings, now in the 40% approval / 55% disapproval range. A range which itself has been escorted by the Times managing the news for minimum damage to Bush.
With the Times telling the story, why shouldn't the newspaper look even better than Bush does?
Wake up... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know all of us cringed at the idea of studying linguistics and rhetoric, but they are important tools to have in order to have others understand your position. We need to change our lexicon if we are going to win this argument.
Re:Can we please... (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't leave early, just "worked it out" like Bush (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe Deutsch thought he could also just "work it out" with Texas A&M to leave before finishing his work there, but get a degree nevertheless. After all, he and his boss Bush are above such things as fulfilling one's obligations, that's for the little people that don't have connections. I mean, come on, they both had more pressing things to attend to, so why should finishing their work get in the way?
Re:What you people don't understand.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, just thought I'd correct that...
Re:Uh, it IS a theory (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't asking the web copy be changed from "Big Bang fact" to "Big Bang theory".
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and it is valid to call it such. But to tack the word "theory" onto EVERY SINGLE MENTION of the term is not a clarification; it is a linguistic exercise designed to create uncertainty and doubt.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you exist at every time at all points in the universe, it might be pretty difficult to prove the "law" applies there.
Here's a hint: Grade school science books are often wrong. Very very wrong. Not just "oversimplification wrong", but completely and utterly wrong.
Re:IAWTP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Theory not a bad order (Score:2, Insightful)
HUH???? All of the theories you mentioned - gravity, relativity, evolution, etc. - can and have been subjected to proofs. Just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity [wikipedia.org]. But if by "proven" you mean "settled and unimpeachable", then nothing in science is ever proven.
It is UNBELIEVABLE that a stupid presidential administration, one that is a mere one year into its 2nd term, has forced us to enter into negotiations over the purpose and meaning of science.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Christians are the primary anti-science force in the US and Europe?
Nah, couldn't be.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:1, Insightful)
"For some reason?" No. stop dodging responsibility. The rest of you keep voting for that vocal minority.
Re:Just one apparatchik -- there are others (Score:3, Insightful)
The system of appointments-as-payoffs is broken beyond belief.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:1, Insightful)
You keep using that word. Not only does it not mean anything like what you think it means, I have to wonder if you even care.
Re:Just one apparatchik -- there are others (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course nobody is holding a gun to the Republicans' heads to continue this trend, much less to encourage it.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:3, Insightful)
You would think some biblical teachings would dissuade this sort of behavior. Truly if Deutsch had such strong faith (or some may argue any faith at all), would he not simply pray for all of us that believe in the Big Bang? Instead of trying to exert his own will upon others, should he not accept them for they are, especially considering that such perspectives do about 0 to harm him and others who share his version of "faith"?
It comes as no surprise to me that it has turned out such an obvious control freak has been proven publicly to be a liar.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:2, Insightful)
We have 2 groups of theories (I would not class evolution as a single theory, neither neither would I creationism/ID - lets call them groups of theories):
One (Evolution) tells us how life formed, how it behaves, how it will behave, what it did, what it should do and how we can expect to proceed. It tells us what we should look for to fill the gaps in our knowledge and it makes sufficient predictions that when we see evidence outside of the expected, then our understanding is incorrect and we had better think/investigate/experiment some more. Simply put it advances the human knowledge and shows us ways to push it further; it helps us understand the world and drives advancement in it
Two (ID/Creationism) we have something which tells us how life formed, and about the motivations of a creator. Theologically this is very interesting about why a creator would create a world like this, and if you believe in a creator this is a valid exercise to attempt to understand him/her/it. This 'Theory' predicts nothing, guides us in search of nothing, helps our understanding of the world not a jot.
However, that isn't science, understanding the wills of a creator is theology/religion's terrain; understanding the world as it is is science's domain.
ID/Creationism helps you understand a creator, Evolutional theory helps you understand the world as it exists. That's why science is interested in Evolution and not in creationism/ID. Call it a theory all you want, I don't mind; but it's only of use in a religious/theological investigation and therefore belongs as such.
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good News and Bad News (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I have.
It has nothing to do with motivations of a Creator or advocating Creationism.
Which is how I know for a fact that this is exactly what it has to do with.
You are either completely deluded since you couldn't even be bothered to read the writings of the founders of the movement who clearly state that that is their entire goal, or you are lying through your teeth.
Which is it?
Re:BOLLOCKS! Reality Checking Crichton (Score:3, Insightful)
Moderator that modded that as a Troll, you're a ballsless wonder. Stick to actuall Trolls not bashing informed dreakign discussion.