CLPEX Chat Board

If you want to drop to your knees, raise a book in the air, and give praise to a Zombie, drink wine and eat crackers pretending it’s blood and flesh, wear magic underwear, or throw chicken bones at a fire and dance around, more power to ya. That sort of thing does not mix with science.

Wait - I thought everyone decided we weren't scientists unless you are performing DNA analysis?

And Bob - we determined that was not a zombie but a Doppleganger....BIG difference

16_Points wrote:Bob, clearly you have never worn magic underwear. Give me your postal address, and I will send you a pair for Christmas, Hanukkah, or secular gift giving holiday of your choice. I think you may find them quite delightful.

In one small but memorable class I taught, a student wore his "Mitre of Infallibility" during the comparison exercises. To me it looked like some kind of hat to wear with a robe for a costume party, but he assured me that when wearing the "Mitre of Infallibility," he could make no erroneous identifications or exclusions. I think his Mitre must have bestowed Divine guidance on him, much like your magic underwear.

It's too bad there is no substitute for a careful examination

I heard that magic underwear is kind of scratchy...

My two cents: I think any reference to "divine" anything should be removed from the Code of Ethics. I am an atheist and I am as honorable and ethical as...gee, I can't think of anything honorable and ethical...

I also get resentful when I am trapped in the room before the business meeting listening to a long, rambling prayer to the Christian God. Religious beliefs are irrelevant in that context.

sharon cook wrote:I heard that magic underwear is kind of scratchy...

Magic underwear is like lederhosen . . . meaning it's seasonal. You have to have the right material for the season spring/summer and fall/winter. Also you should wash them with Woolite . . .

We must have a very unique situation in our lab, because out of the 15 of us that work here I don’t think there’s an atheist in the bunch. All believe in God. Most are non-denominational Christian, ones a Mormon. Some believe, but are not active in their faith. One has a theology degree and is married to an ordained minister. Is it so rare for scientists to believe in a higher power? I tend to doubt it. Even Ron Smith & #$$@. Has an Ichthys in their logo. Ron is a Christian, a great examiner, instructor, and a wonderful man.

I still agree that religious language should not be in a professional organizations code of ethics. It’s a personal ethic. And I also was a little uncomfortable at the IAI when a prayer to the Christian God was offered when there were those of other faiths in the room.

BobS, you have not written to me yet. It can only be for one of two reasons. You are either afraid to debate me, or you want to protect your anonymity. Either way, I can’t blame you

16_Points wrote:As for certification, I support licensure and certification. Unfortunately, in some cases, the IAI is the only body offering certification. But this is not true everywhere. Furthermore, if everyone bows at the alter of the IAI (pun intended), how will we ever develop additional certification programs? Or is the consensus that the IAI should have a monopoly on certification?

For any agency interested in initiating its own certification program for LPEs, check ISO/IEC 17024:2003. This standard sets out criteria for an organization's certification program for individual persons. Unfortunately, ISO charges for a copy of the document. You can find information on the program from other sources by googling "ISO/IEC 17024:2003."

There is nothing to prevent any other agency or organization from creating a program to certify LPEs. The idea was discussed at SWGFAST several years ago, not for SWGFAST to certify individuals, but just the idea that other certification programs might be considered by other agencies or organizations. No action was taken by SWGFAST.

printlady wrote:I like your idea of certification programs outside the IAI. I know the FBI has their own certification program and I have been mulling over the idea of state certifications. I don’t know if the concept has ever been proposed before, but I think it makes sense to have regional programs that follow national or international guidelines.

The FBI has had its own internal certification program for years. Any agency or organization willing to invest the effort and expense to do it right can initiate a similar program.

Jan,

What's to debate about? I am athiest, skeptic, and a critical thinker. Always have been and I always will be. I've spent plenty of time in a fox hole and I nearly died in an acident. No conversions here. Religion seems really silly to me. We might as well debate the color of Unicorns, the wind drag of Fiery Wings, or the density of Pixie dust. It's all made up.

BobS.
Your condescension shows that you have no tolerance for those whose views differ from your own. And your cowardice is why you post anonymously. Unless you want to come out of the shadows I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. If you ever want to hear my side you know where to find me. I’m in the IAI directory.

Jan,

Condescending? Where do you get that from? Because I said I thought religion is silly? I don’t have any tolerance for those whose views differ from my own? You got all that from ‘I think religion is silly.’

So, Unicorns are silly but resurrection of the dead is not. The belief in a tooth fiery would be silly but the miracle of turning water in to wine is not. Pixie dust is silly but Transfiguration is not.

If you remember earlier I said, if you want to believe in that sort of thing More Power To Ya. You call others intolerant and cowards because they don’t have the same beliefs as you. Now that is just plain silly.

To me "Faith Heads" is condescending.
To me "Fundi's" is condescending.
You critisize prayer, which to me is condescending. If folks want to pray what's wrong with that? Their not forcing anyone who doesn't want to to do it.
Many peoples religious beliefs are what they base many of their lifes decisions on. Our daily actions, who we marry, how we raise our familes, even what we do for a living are influenced by the belief that a loving and and omnipresent God is by our side every step of the way. Relating that to Santa Claus and pixie dust is condescending to me. We are all free to believe what we choose. I promise I will not critisize or judge you for believing different than me. I have looked at the evidence, given it lot's of rational thought and deliberation, and have come to believe what I believe. You have come to a different conclusion, and that's OK.

I'm with you that "Seeking Divine Guidance" should be removed from the code of ethics. At least we agree on that!

Come on out of the shadows and shoot me an e-mail.

Here's a list of great scientists through the ages who were "religious".

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_sci ... #Christian

Jan LeMay wrote: I have looked at the evidence, given it lot's of rational thought and deliberation, and have come to believe what I believe.

But have you had it blind tested and triple checked?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Ian

LOL!
I skipped right over the verification phase. I guess my conclusion is invalid.
Thanks Ian. I needed to smile today.

BobS wrote:Jan,
So, Unicorns are silly but resurrection of the dead is not. The belief in a tooth fiery would be silly but the miracle of turning water in to wine is not. Pixie dust is silly but Transfiguration is not.

Oh, Bob, unicorns are NOT silly . . . they are magically delicious . . .

And here is where divine intervention would be useful, ha.