Ron Stone M.D.: WASC seems to make a big deal about “institutional …

Comment on WASC promises to visit LSU spring 2011 by Professor Kent.

Ron Stone M.D.: WASC seems to make a big deal about “institutional autonomy.” Can anyone explain how LSU can be an “autonomous” institution” and still maintain support of our SDA Church’s doctrines? It sounds impossible.

Easy, Ron. They need to establish faculty expectations through internal mechanisms and policies that involve appropriate process and documentation. At that point, they can them enforce those expectations.

If, on the other hand, they pursue a route that is dictated by the demands of those like you at EducateTruth, and they fire these faculty without due process, WASC will see that as inappropriate influence from external pressure, and could justify probation status or revocation of accreditation.

WASC has a website that clearly spells out these standards and how they should be put into practice. WASC is not hostile toward Church-operated institutions; they simply require a level of autonomy that allows the institution to establish and enforce policies that preserve academic freedom within the confines of those policies.

Professor Kent Also Commented

WASC promises to visit LSU spring 2011

BobRyan: At which time we do not hand LSU over to WASC, we simply seek another accrediting body with more objectivity. Where is the problem?

What did you have in mind? The New England Association of Schools and Colleges? The Accreditation Commission for Midwifery Education?

Accreditation determines a school’s eligibility for participation in federal (Title IV) and state financial aid programs. Proper accreditation is also important for the acceptance and transfer of college credit, and is a prerequisite for many graduate programs.

The most recognized and accepted type of accreditation in the U.S. is regional accreditation. Generally, college credits or degrees received at a regionally accredited institution are accepted by other regionally accredited colleges or universities (non-regionally accredited programs are not as accepted). Anything less than regional accreditation substantially devalues a student’s diploma.

WASC just happens to be the only accreditation body in La Sierra’s region. Gosh darn.


WASC promises to visit LSU spring 2011
Since many of you distrust anything I say, let’s see what WASC stipulates by going to an authoritative source: WASC’s very own accreditation handbook. Here is summary of the relevant standards:

http://www.apu.edu/wasc/pdfs/wasc_accreditation_handbook.pdf

1.4 The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and in their writing.

GUIDELINES: The institution has published or has readily-available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure that these conditions are consistent with academic freedom. Due process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth. (emphasis supplied)

1.6 Even when supported by or affiliated with political, corporate, or religious organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose and operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.

GUIDELINE: The institution has no history of interference in substantive decisions or educational functions by political, religious, corporate, or other external bodies outside the institution’s own governance arrangements.
________________

The bottom line: WASC respects religious institutions that “strive to instill specific beliefs and world views.” However, these institutions need to establish boundaries within which views can be disseminated.

I believe the university can readily effect policy which stipulates that faculty must treat SDA doctrines and lifestyle issues with respect. The university can also stipulate expectations when hiring. I’m quite certain there is a faculty handbook that provides many policies, and simple revision can probably accomplish what is needed.

Even so, WASC will probably expect allowance for faculty to express personal dissenting views, so long as they do so respectfully, without undo advocation, and within established parameters. This does not preclude strong loyalty of the institution to the Church’s mission and concerns. From the rift between Paul and Barnabas to the disagreements among SDA consituents and leaders at the 2010 Atlanta GC Convention, varying opinion has always existed in the Church. And it will remain until Jesus returns. We’ll survive until then.


WASC promises to visit LSU spring 2011

BobRyan: Does WASC consider the LSU board management of LSU to be “interference from outsiders”

No. Every university has a board.

An example of “interference from outsiders” is when an outside organization pressures an accredited institution to depart from its established policies and procedures. Firing faculty who did not violate established policies and procedures would constitute such a violation.

I’ve pointed out repeatedly that the policies and procedures can be changed, and that violators can subsequently be disciplined or fired. The board can and should have a process in this. However, many readers here have no qualms about punishing the thousands of LSU students and tuition-paying parents by demanding that LSU capitulate to their desire to fire numerous administrators and faculty. You have to have just cause. If the policies have not stated, “You must teach that the weight of scientific evidence favors a short term chronology and a global flood,” then you cannot fire teachers who do not teach this.


Recent Comments by Professor Kent

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.

Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.

Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.

Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.

The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.

I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.

While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.

He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.

What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?

As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.

I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.

Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.

Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.

SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.

The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.

I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.

Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:

o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago

None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.

Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:

[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]

The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]

Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!

I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.

Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.