We haven’t yet reached the point in the NASA story arc (more here, here, here and here) where the Deathmobile, representing science, triumphantly emerges from under the cake and crushes everything in its path. Doubtless that day will come, but in the meantime we can all have the pleasure of watching NASA flack and erstwhile B/C2004 campaign operative George Deutsch make the sad transition from a government player to a pejorative term conflating hubris, theocratic idiocy, ideology-driven patronage hiring and (late bonus) forged credentials. (login mrbig/mrbig):
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters’ access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word “theory” at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
Mr. Deutsch’s resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
As a fittting testimony to this weird new world of distributed journalism, the story was broken by blogger and recent A&M grad Nick Anthis. Kudos to the NYT for giving credit where credit is due.
Recall that Deutsch went a bit further than merely labeling the Big Bang a ‘theory.’
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”
Bye, George, you won’t be missed.
kl
Is it not a theory? It’s a theory that makes more sense than, “A man with a white beard reached down from the clouds and made two people out of mud” and that sort of thing, of course, but I don’t get why adding that word alone is such an outrage. Isn’t it called “the Big Bang theory”?
Ancient Purple
What a complete disgrace. What the hell is a 24-year-old journalism student doing directing “science talk” at NASA? This isn’t just an “ooops” moment. This is a tragedy.
Wasn’t this guy vetted on any level? Good God! I had a background check including having my educational credentials checked out when I was temping between jobs.
On the bright side, at least Deutsch is available to take over FEMA now.
Tim F.
Words have different meanings in scientific versus popular-culture contexts. Scientifically-speaking, ‘theory’ is to ‘idea’ as ‘Wayne Gretzky’ is to ‘hockey player.’ Read more here.
JWeidner
I think the problem revolves around the differences between scientific theory and the general public’s understanding of the word.
Scientifically, much of what could be understood as essentially “fact” is referred to as theory. However, some people (within this administration specifically, it seems) know that the word holds different connotations to the average joe. The average person is likely to think of theory as something unproven, less than fact and therefore open to interpretation, falsification and competing theories.
This administration, as well as people like creationists, use the confusion over meanings to help create controversy where, scientifically at least, none exists. They have been particularly successful in attacking evolutionary theory, which, scientifically speaking, is on ground as solid as bedrock.
I think what this instance really represents is an effort to frame the Big Bang as “just a theory” and is another attempt by religious elements to frame a scientifically sound theory as something that is open to debate. Ridiculous on the surface, but it has been remarkably effective in selling so-called “controversy” to a good number of citizens.
Halffasthero
John, you have a way with words that I have trouble improving on. I don’t post much anymore because it seems little more needs to be said.
Edmund Dantes
It wasn’t John.
Vladi G
Yes, and that process revealed that he would be an unquestioning shill for the administration, which is pretty much all they’re looking for. Actual qualifications are irrelevant (see also: “Drownie”).
The sense of schadenfreude would be a lot more fulfilling if I thought this guy was going to pay any price for it. He’ll just be given a well paid job at some right wing think tank, and before long, he’ll be writing columns for Renew America.
Jill
Does anyone see a pattern here? Brown, Deutsch and how did it go for the nominee for NHTSA, Ms. Nason? Apparantly she too has no experience for her nominated position. It’s all faith-based, based on the faith that these people will tow the company line and nothing else.
The Other Steve
I can’t tell my friends about this.
They already think this administration is insane. If they see this, they’ll lose all faith in America.
Davebo
I wonder if, like Brownie, he gets to stay on the payroll?
Marcus Wellby
Damn, will the mistakes of these Few Bad Apples* never end?
*Copyright, 2006, GOP Inc.
neil
The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote,
which was NOT why he was fired. He was fired for faking his resumé. He will be replaced by someone with a real resume who will continue to push intelligent design, after the Bush administration basks in the praise for canning the guy they never should have hired in the first place.
Just watch.
LITBMueller
Another example of this sort of cronyism and political purging at the State Department can be read about in this Knight Ridder article from today.
One of the zampolits filling the now-open positions:
Who is this Lehrman guy? A guy in his 30’s who has little experience, who’s came to the administration from the world of business consulting, who had formed a firm in 1998 with hardcore Neocon Mark Gerson. Lehrman also was on the staff of the Silbermann Robb Commission.
Cronyism. Pure and simple. He’s doing a heckuva job.
This is information I found from doing just a little research on Google (too bad KR didn’t do any…). I put a more in-depth post up on Kos if you want to read it, here.
Jill, this is definitely a pattern. As far as Deutsch goes, it was silly. As far as Lehrman goes, it could be dangerous.
kl
So it’s bad that this guy wanted it to be called a theory, even though scientists call it a theory, because this guy sucks. Instead of “fake but accurate,” it’s “accurate but fake.”
Ancient Purple
So, when you talked about gravity, you have always said “theory of gravity,” right?
yet another jeff
The only thing worse than an Aggie grad is an Aggie dropout.
Pooh
Excellent word usage
kl
Nobody does. Whereas lots of people say “the Big Bang theory.” (Not to mention that the effects of gravity are a lot easier for most people to see for themselves than the Big Bang, but whatever.) If you want to start calling it “the Big Bang law,” I think that would be okay too.
LITBMueller
C’mon, guys, everyone knows that Gravity is just a theory. I learned it in science class, when the teacher taught us about Intelligent Pull!
;)
J-Smith
I love to see guys like that go down.
Notwithstanding… Jesus is gonna punish NASA for not believing His Dad (or obeying His Minion on Earth, GWB.)
kl
Correction: It’s supposed to be that the man with the white beard reached down from the clouds and made a guy out of mud, and then later made a woman out of the guy’s… I think it was his rib? Sorry for messing up that theory. Which is really kind of sexist when you think about it.
Slartibartfast
Wait…this beard part, it’s all just a theory.
coachtrenks
no…you can’t call it the “Big Bang Law” unless you have a mathematical relationship that describes events. The Law of Gravity lets you calculate the force between two objects if you know their masses and the distance between them. The Gravitational Theory is an attemtp to explain HOW this works. (still working on the details here…that pesky “gravitron” just isn’t behaving like other theoretical particles).
There is, among the non-scientific laity, a misconception that theories become laws once you “prove” them. Not so.
Ditto for gas laws (Boyle’s Law, Charles’ Law, Gay-Lussac’s Law) and the Kinetic THEORY.
Nongeophysical Dennis
You see, this is what we’re talking about, you are confusing the scientific definition of theory (from Tim F’s link) and what might be termed guess, suppositon or belief. The God-stuff is NOT theory. It might be a hypothesis–but it isn’t really even that. It is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and in my own personal defintion unscientific. (To be scientific the observations must lead you towartds the theory–not the theory being used to measure observations.
That is why political hacks tossing around the word “theory” is objectionable.
kl
Don’t tell me, tell Tim F.
So much for the Theory of Being Able to Discern Irony.
Nongeophysical Dennis
Hey, that’s a good one, it’s funny on many levels. You spend several posts telling us you see no problems with Deutsch telling us the Big Bang is a theory, in fact you even allow that it’s a better theory that the Man with The Beard theory.
That’s the problem, the Man with The Beard Theory ISN’T a theory–it’s not even a “bad” theory–it’s something else entirely.
No it wouldn’t.
Gravity IS a law (not a theory) and the Big Bang is a Theory (not a law) It may seem like a small quibble, but it is not. I’m just trying to help you clear up some confusion. If you wanna get snippy, go ahead.
Pooh
For more on Mr. Deutsch’s “bona fides” try this
Good times.
Paul Wartenberg
Has anyone else noticed how these crony/hack types tend to inflate or otherwise lie about their creds on their resumes? If I were the Democrats, I’d be getting every resume of every Bush apointee and fine-combing them down to the high school transcripts, hell the pre-K transcripts.
TM Lutas
Once again, some idiot proves that if you’re going to lie on your resume, keep your head down and don’t court controversy.
Again, the Big Bang theory is very christian friendly. I don’t know of one christian denomination that’s against it. It maps almost perfectly against the biblical book of Genesis. Of all the non-scientific resistance to the Big Bang, almost all of it is there because it maps to Genesis too well and anti-christian bigots don’t like that.
Paul Wartenberg
Yes, it *is* a theory meaning it’s an idea that has been tested and verified to a certain degree but not entirely proven an absolute truth, but there’s complexity to this issue. First off, the Big Bang is the most commonly accepted theory, and as I mentioned a second ago a lot of the evidence gathered on the makeup and history of the cosmos fits with the theory. Secondly, Deutsch was caught on record as arguing against the Big Bang as it opposes what he supported as creationism here’s the money quote:
Considering this, alongside the fact Deutsch had no background or degrees in science to qualify him for a job at a science-oriented organization like NASA, showed up the fact he was a purely cronyist hire just like the good ole days of the Spoils System that corrupted government in the 19th century, and that he was only there as part of Bush’s War on Science.
The question I have now is, who’s going to replace him at NASA? If it’s Pat Robertson, for the love of Dog, run!
kl
So you didn’t get the joke, that’s perfectly okay. The others can still enjoy it.
Whew!
Vladi G
Nothing to do with football here, but would someone PLEASE, FOR ONCE, PROPERLY CHARACTERIZE THE PARABLE OF THE FOX AND THE GRAPES?!?! This is fucked up more often than just about any literary device I’ve ever seen.
Look people, it’s very simple. There was a fox. He wanted some grapes, but they were really high up on the vine. He couln’t reach them, so he walked away claiming that they were probably sour anyway. He denied their desirability.
No one on the Seahawks is saying “we didn’t want to win that stupid old Super Bowl anyway.” They aren’t denying the desirability of the championship. It’s not “sour grapes” to complain about shitty officiating.
Really, people, Aesop wasn’t all that complicated.
Nongeophysical Dennis
I got the joke, I just thought it wasn’t funny, was counter-productive and plays perfectly into the hands of the “just-a-theory” crowd.
Think of it this way: Laws explain why things happen, such as why two bodies attract each other and what the force is (eg force of gravity proportional to the product of the two masses divided by the distance between thier centers–the Law of Gravity). And Theories explain what happened. (The Big Bang, descent with modification aka evolution, plate tectonics etc.
Words mean things, words in science mean very specific things, things which are generally not at all understood by most people.
Relax, I’m here to help.
Vladi G
Dammit, wrong thread!
scs
A little help from Dictionary.com
kl
But other than that you liked it, right?
Wow! What is it called when you reiterate what the other person already knows, because you really really didn’t get a joke?
kl
P.S. This part was a joke too:
See, I was being ironic because it’s not a law, but based on the way some people are reacting… oh, never mind.
Nongeophysical Dennis
As long as I’m busy insulting you, hows about we look up the difference between denotation and connotation?
You’re pretty much asking why it’s a big deal, which tells me straight off that you don’t know the difference between theory and law, gettin’ snarky about it at the end of the thread doesnt change that. For the record, one more time, here’s why it’s a big deal:
What’s it called when you’re not reiterating anything to somebody–but telling it to them for the first time and they try to pretend that that is what they meant all along?
kl
Well, that’s an interesting… theory? Law? See, you’ve got me all confused now. Which is the one with the thing you mentioned? No, not that thing, the other one.
Nongeophysical Dennis
As long as we’re clear on that, my work here is done! ;)
kl
Okay, so there was your problem.
Pooh
Damned activist scientists
Halffasthero
Damn, I have to be more careful. You are right. What I said other than that still holds true.
kl
Okay, I think I got it: In a quote, this fellow used the word “opinion” to describe what he thinks the Big Bang is, whereas in the official documents he insisted on the word “theory,” so therefore he thinks opinions and theories are the same thing? And so when he says “Big Bang theory,” he means something different than when scientists say “Big Bang theory”? So even though technically that word choice isn’t wrong, he was wrong in his heart, and there should be a law against that? Or no, a theory. A theory against that. Or…?
Nongeophysical Dennis
Bingo, now you’re on the trolley!
kl
So when somebody would read “Big Bang theory” on that site, the reader actually thought it was saying “Big Bang opinion,” even though it didn’t actually say “Big Bang opinion.” Because of something this guy said in response to a reporter. Telepathy is just a theory too, right?
kl
Relax, just kidding about the telepathy part! Everybody knows that’s a law.
kl
Nongeophysical Dennis
Now, y’see, you’re starting to scare me again, but you were always a d(t)roll fellow.
I’m pretty sure we are all well familiar with that standard tactic. To pretend otherwise is disingenous at best. (Just replace the word “evolution” with the words “Big Bang.”)
And so another front in the war on science is opened.
kl
Oh, and I just wanted to point out that I’m not the one who brought laws into it. That was Ancient Purple:
And I replied that no, I say “law of gravity,” because laws and theories aren’t the same thing, and made fun of him a little bit for trying to compare gravity with the Big Bang. Maybe that’s where you got mixed up.
kl
That’s great, but I’m not sure how it explains why it’s wrong to give out accurate information to the public, even if it’s by accident.
kl
The accurate information being that the Big Bang is a theory, of course, not that evolution explains Pat Buchanan.
Nongeophysical Dennis
Nah, I actually caught that, but you were running with it, and this here is what really tripped my trigger
Deustch, knew what he meant, all the wingnuts know what he meant, and we for damn sure know what he meant–his team has a long track record of keeping the word “theory” front and center as though it scores big points for them.
It’s gonna be a long tough fight, but I refuse to let them redefine the word theory.
Nongeophysical Dennis
Because in the connotation of the word he’s clearly using it isn’t accurate information. He’s made it clear that that is not what he means to put across. It’s inaccurrate information that accidentally looks right.
kl
Well, I think that pretty much sums up “accurate but fake”: It doesn’t matter that technically he’s right, because he and his dumb friends think they’re pulling one over on the godless evolutionists. Seems like that’s a pretty deep rabbit hole to be leaping down, and I just want to clarify that I don’t mean that literally.
kl
So if the teacher tells you 2+2=4, but deep down he’s thinking “6!”, you’re going to have real problems with your multiplication tables.
stickler
All this mental wanking about theories is nice. But here’s a question nobody has thought to raise, let alone get an answer for:
WHO hired Mr. Deutsch?
Subsidiary questions:
Is that person certifiably insane, or just stupid as a box of hammers? And who hired HIM? Follow that line of reasoning, of course, and we all know where we end up. Where the buck stops, you might say…
Nongeophysical Dennis
Your to funny, ewe assume that there interpretation of the word “theory” in this case is hard to suss out.
When you read that last sentence aloud it has an entirely different meaning than the one seen on the screen. Proponents of Intelligent Design have a very long track of bandying about the word theory in the contect of “guess” and he mentions Intelligent Design in the same sentence as defining “theory” as opinion.
The way he’s using it it is merely a homonym of the correct word nothing more. Scientists and (hopefully) students of science don’t need to be told the Big Bang is a theory. Deutsch isn’t including it for their benefit, by his own admission he’s attempting play down its significance for the rubes’ benefit.
kl
Attempting, okay, but succeeding? No, because everybody uses that term anyway, no matter what he intends it to mean. I know the Russians have done a lot of testing on telepathy, but I remain skeptical.
Tim F.
This has to be one of the most inane discussions that I’ve ever seen. If you’re in favor of promoting creationism at NASA, kl, then say so. If not then you’re whistling out of your ass and calling it conversation.
Pooh
I call it American Idol
kl
Civil! Hey, I was just questioning why it’s a big deal to say “Big Bang theory.” That’s why I said, “Isn’t it actually the Big Bang theory?” instead of, “I’m in favor of promoting creationism at NASA.” I’m sorry you don’t find the discussion interesting, but thanks for taking the time to pop in.
Tim F.
The problem is not whether we understand the various meanings of ‘theory.’ We do. The problem is that Deutsch’s stated aim was to present the Big Bang as one ‘theory’ with credible alternatives, which is 100% bullshit. It conflates the two meanings of the word ‘theory,’ and it suggests that vaible alternatives exist when there are none. Deutsch even had the courtesy to explain why exactly he’s propagating this confusion, which is to promote creationism.
Since you can get all of that from this post and my first reply, and you seem reasonably not retarded, it’s safe to assume that you already knew all of that. So don’t take it personally when I assume that you’re arguing in bad faith.
kl
If I didn’t take it personally when you said I was whistling out of my ass, why would I take it personally when you comically overestimate your own writing ability?
Tim F.
No need to read my writing. As I quoted Deutsch:
Pulling a dog-eared leaf out of the creationist playbook, Deutsch wants to sow confusion about whether there exist credible alternatives to the Big Bang theory. There do not. If you have problems with the multiple definitions of ‘theory,’ fine, but that’s not why we’re mocking the little turdmuffin.
JG
Except for the timeline and who was present at the start, what is the difference between the two points of view? Over my lifetime, the scientific explanation has evolved to a single point in time – just like creation. The next question for science will be what and how all this “stuff” existed as a single point of mass or something since I think it pretty much would violate all current theories of mass and energy. What existed before the beginning is the age old question posed by philosophers and drug induced reflections. At this time in science, accepting the big bang as the total explanation is a believe system just like creation. I find it all interesting but of not much importance.
And I have pretty much written off NASA, especially the manned space portion. Bring on the robots! Like most government agencies, it has become a bloated bureaucracy that stifles its best and has preservation of the bureaucracy as its primary goal.
kl
Maybe you should? You know, before you post it?
Well, I certainly I didn’t think it was.
kl
Wait, I know! It’s like how black people can call each other the “n-word,” but then they get mad when white people do. This guy was calling the Big Bang an “n-word,” but only scientists get to do that.
Tim F.
JG,
I don’t disagree with anything that you said. The big bang theory is itself is ridiculous, improbable and riddled with assumptions that wreck our understanding of how matter and energy are supposed to behave. It would be laughed out of court, except that nothing else fits our current knowledge. Someday a better explanation will come along and, to everybody’s relief, kick the big bang off its improbable dais. But it hasn’t yet, and when it does it won’t be Deutsch’s anthropomorphized Creator.
Manned space missions are definitely a boondoggle of the worst sort. Vanity projects that sap important resources. Shame that we elected a government that absolutely adores porrly thought-out vanity missions.
kl just now:
kl, first post:
I must have you misunderstood. Apologies &c.
kl
Did I say it was the only reason you were, as you say, mocking the little turdmuffin? Or did I just ask about that particular part? Heck, I even chipped in with a few snarky remarks about men in the clouds doing godly-type stuff. (Nonwhosit Dennis didn’t like ’em!)
kl
Oh, one of them was actually in the full version of that line you quoted. Your mouse must have slipped when you were cutting it. Here ya go:
See, by “makes more sense,” I was kind of struggling to find a way to say that it makes more sense. By the way, shouldn’t NASA promote creationism? J/K LOL
kl
Oh wait, you guys thought I was saying creationism is a THEORY. Shit, my bad. It totally isn’t. And it sure as gosh ain’t a law!
kenB
Hmmm… “kl”… reverse it…add an “E” on the front… Aha!!
Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my theory.
DougJ
How come we never hear about all the political appointees who didn’t lie on their resumes? Is it because of liberal media bias?
scs
I don’t know about TimF thoughts on this, but I thoroughly enjoyed this thread!
JJ
Why doesn’t anyone talk about Elizabeth Cheney being “Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives”? Guess you put your family members in regions that aren’t all that important.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/42273.htm
Antonio Manetti
We can argue till the cows come home about what the meaning of “theory” is, the fact is that this kid had no damn business interfering with the way scientific information is presented.
The travesty is that a wet-behind-the-ears, alleged journalism major and ex-gofer was allowed to spin scientific content to suit Bush’s core constituency and intimidate career scientists when they balked at knuckling under to the party line.
Richard 23
Anne Elk. LOL Ken B. AHEM!
Her theory about the brontosaurus I always found illuminating! And what it is, and she owns it too.
skip
“He will be replaced by someone with a real resume who will continue to push intelligent design”
Ah, with a degree in moonbeams and balloons from Bob Jones University.
BTW, “Brontosaurus” is an obsolete name for Apatosaurus
kl
kenB… reverse it… change the “B” to an “F” and the “e” to an “i”… change ’em back again… reverse it again… Aha!!
kate
OH MY GOD… ok, I mostly lurk here but I have to say I have been holding my sides while laughing at kl on this blog today.. Thanks for the funniest reading I have had all day!