WGBH hires, then fires, anti-vaxxer as science reporter

The Globe reports on the quick coming and going of Mish Michaels at "Greater Boston."


Neighborhoods: 

    Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

    Comments

    Interesting story

    By on

    Who know a women of science (as a meteorologist) could be so thick about vaccines.

    And btw.. Adam, your story has a proceeding " at the end of the link so it doesn't load upon click.

    up
    Voting is closed. 18

    Well, goes the other way, too ...

    I've known immunologists who couldn't dress appropriately for the weather if they were given coded tags for their outerwear.

    Basic scientific knowledge is useful, but not everything "translates".

    up
    Voting is closed. 17

    oh I know

    By on

    I used to work with scientists many years ago.. wonderful people who were solving the world's disease problems. But could not use a computer to save their life (and their job depended on it)

    Sometimes people are just very smart on one things, brain dead in the others.

    I think my point was.. Mish spent her life looking at data models and factual information. Then she got pregnant and "researched" about vaccines. The information that the anti-vaxxers use and its sources is junk science and false. I just would have thought that she would have been able to see thru that.

    But then again..... I just look at our country right now and the whole #alternativefacts thing. People choose to believe what they want to believe, even if its totally wrong and isn't backed up by facts.

    up
    Voting is closed. 43

    An interesting view of what science is

    “What I was told time and time again was that there is no story, that the science is settled, that there’s no reason to present stories of this nature on TV because simply these are fringe stories. This was not representing the masses,” she told lawmakers.

    “To me, this was surprising because I thought the media was supposed to be the voice of the people, and clearly at that point, in my newsroom, it was not acting as the voice of the people,” she testified.

    Apparently, she thinks that a scientific consensus ought to include the unfounded opinions of people who are not scientists.

    Oh, and she's a climate-change denier, of course.

    up
    Voting is closed. 47

    Is that true?

    By on

    Is she a climate change denier, or are you just idly speculating?

    up
    Voting is closed. 7

    It's not that unusual

    By on

    Davd Epstein is a skeptic, too.

    Metereology is about predicting the weather based in patterns and modeling. Climate science looks at weather data that has already occurred to show change and hypothesize future overall trends. They are coming at things from different angles.

    Don't ask a climatologist what the weather will be on Monday. Don't ask a meteorologist how the average temperature will rise over the next decade based on current carbon emissions. They are two different things.

    up
    Voting is closed. 8

    Sort of

    Climate science looks at weather data that has already occurred to show change and hypothesize future overall trends. They are coming at things from different angles.

    It isn't about the past so much as about which future we pick. It is also about the fact that even if we stopped all emissions of carbon in human uses now, we would still be in trouble for the next century or two because we have built up so much climate forcing stuff in the atmosphere already.

    The ensemble models incorporate a broad number of models with a range of probabilities and uncertainties, as well as specifying scenarios regarding continued emissions rates and effects of such things as melting permafrost and methane in ice and so on. As things have progressed, they have had to account for more phenomena that weren't around when they started with the first models. However, they are based on the past as a means of projecting the future in terms of how much energy they predict the atmosphere will trap.

    The difference between climate and weather is important - climate is long time frame (centuries), weather is short term variation within that. The problem is that those short-term variations continue regardless - but the longer-term patterns of them are shifting and measurably so.

    up
    Voting is closed. 11

    That's why.

    By on

    Oh, and she's a climate-change denier, of course.

    Now we know the real reason she was let-go

    up
    Voting is closed. 10

    insufferable

    By on

    Greeter Boston gets more and more painful to watch because of the insufferable Jim Braude. I wonder who does the reference checks at WGBH.

    up
    Voting is closed. 14

    Leave it to WGBH to fire an Indian immigrant who has an opinion

    By on

    A well educated immigrant from India, Mish Michaels did very well on her own, then married a well-heeled owner of local car dealerships, so here's hoping that she retains a great lawyer and sues for millions. For those who follow WGBH, it's no surprise that someone with a difference of opinion is quickly escorted out. The Greater Boston program with far-left former Cambridge City Councilor Jim Braude is no longer watchable and the Friday night Beat the Press program has become an echo chamber for liberals, moderates need not apply. The late Friday night repeat is better comedy than any of the actual comedy shows on the networks at that hour.

    I'm sure the suits and pantsuits at channel 2 are glad they got rid of Mish before today's blizzard, lest she question Al Gore's prediction that 2016 was the point of no return for Global Warming, "Climate Change."

    up
    Voting is closed. 25

    I don't think I've ever seen

    By on

    I don't think I've ever seen a weather segment on Greater Boston.

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    Yawn

    You're into full on madlib territory now, dude.

    Any more canned rants with the details changed?

    2016 was pretty bad for climate, BTW. You have the scientific acumen of a dead shrew, so it would be impossible to explain it in peabrainlish.

    up
    Voting is closed. 74

    -- 1C cooler --

    -- 1C cooler --

    I did not know the climate is supposed to be 1C cooler than it is now. Thank you for offering the information.

    Has the climate ever deviated 1C or more before mankind industrialized?

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    Why are you asking here?

    I mean, we can give you a nice xkcd graphic on climate history that even Reason Magazine retweeted, since you seem to have missed the other twenty seven times people have posted it.

    There is an enormous amount of solid scientific information on the web. The Union of Concerned Scientists website has multiple levels of resources on climate change (www.ucsusa.org). I was supposed to be at a conference at UMB on the upcoming revisions to the National Climate Assessment today, but sea level rise and storm surge (and the increase in snow and ice storms born of a warming climate in an intemperate area) had other plans.

    NCA 2014 is pretty lucid and simple - start here:http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

    From previous "questions", you appear to be intent on not listening or dismissing everything. Let's hope that this condition does not persist until you are ankle deep in the rising tide on the Cape.

    up
    Voting is closed. 15

    Found it.

    Found it.

    [img]www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Temperature-change-and-carbon-diox...

    We are running a few degrees too cold if your 1c deviation from the norm is true.

    I do not think you are right. History definitely does not agree with you at all.

    Since there are constantly deviations up to a few degrees, this climate is quite normal,.

    Of course if a person is inclined to display only a little tiny slice of data, the data may appear askew enough to scare anyone not that smart enough to look at the big picture.

    up
    Voting is closed. 11

    You don't think what

    That a large number of climate scientists and their facts and data outweigh your opinion?

    Too bad for you. Nobody is going to pay for your folly when the water comes over.

    up
    Voting is closed. 18

    Your user name is ironic

    By on

    considering that its namesake is apt to be underwater in a hundred years' time.

    This isn't one of those things that we can all argue about like it's personal preference. The tides, they are a-rising, and anyone who has so much as glanced at an earth science textbook agrees that the only remaining question is "how do we slow it down?"

    up
    Voting is closed. 14

    I am 79 feet above sea level

    I am 79 feet above sea level and live about a quarter mile from a strip club. I am good until the year 2944 or until I die... according to the data from the scientists.

    When I was a kid, the scientists were all like "ice age! Oh noes!" Then they were all like "Global warming! Arrr" and now they are all like "Weather changing!! Run! Buy carbonite credits! We are all doomed!". Somewhere inbetween the ice age and global warming dread, some people thought the Japanese were going to take over the United States by way of crappy imports. Let me tell you. You three come across as quite polite and grounded compared to all the doomsayers of old. Shine on you crazy kids.

    up
    Voting is closed. 7

    Your chart

    By on

    Few things.

    Humans didn't exist 200,000 years ago. All of human history is inside that cold period of about 50,000 years.

    Current CO2 levels have surpassed 400ppm , and have shot up drastically since industrialzation. A time so short, it's not visible on that graph.

    You'll be dead and so will I. But your grandkids/legacy won't be fine when the bread baskets in the plains and Cali are dealing with 150F summers.

    Ultimately the point us we are altering our habitat outside of the norms that we evolved for, and at a pace never done before. As your graph shows, the earth will keep spinning and the earth will survive. Humanity? That's a different problem.

    up
    Voting is closed. 10

    Like in the above picture

    Like in the above picture someone posted, you alarmists only show a small sliver of time.

    Here is a chart showing a HUGE chunk of time with c02 PPM shown from 180 to 7000

    http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/

    C02 at 400 ppm is dangerously low for life on our planet.

    During the Jurassic period, life was sploded all over the place and c02 at 1000-3000 ppm

    I have lived a long life that included suffering the rants of droolers going on about AIDS, SARS, ozone depletion, Avian flu, Y2k, Soviet thermonuclear annihilation, Aztec prophecies, peak oil in 2008, famine, drought, cats and dogs living together, and Manhattan underwater by 2015.

    up
    Voting is closed. 10

    geologist-1011

    By on

    "Timothy Casey is a petroleum geologist"

    Hmm. Any possible vested interest in denying global warming there?

    up
    Voting is closed. 9

    He does not deny global

    He does not deny global warming.

    He is showing us that life on Earth is in danger from too low C02 in the atmosphere.

    Pay attention.

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    Wow

    By on

    One guy says SO IT MUST BE TRUE. It is simple so I BELIEVE IT and it therefore certainly debunks thousands of scientists spending many years on figuring things out!

    You are a classic idiot.

    up
    Voting is closed. 4

    Any scientist will tell you

    Any scientist will tell you that if c02 levels fall too low then life on Earth is in danger.

    The link I provided simply showed a graph with the complete truth of the c02 levels over the history of life on our planet.

    1000 to 3000 ppm during most of the Jurassic period was awesome for life on Earth. Anything less than 200 ppm is not good for life on this planet. We are too close to that mark right now at 400 ppm. We could use some more c02 in the atmosphere.

    IMAGE(http://www.sustainableoregon.com/_wp_generated/wpcdf36281.png)

    up
    Voting is closed. 3

    -- How has life survived the

    -- How has life survived the last 400,000 years? --

    1) Dangerously low does not equal planetary life extinction.

    2) Sex. Lots of it. Thank a Catholic if you like proliferation of humans.

    3) If c02 levels were 800 ppm we would have even MORE life on the planet and less people whining about a non-sustainable population.

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    I had always suspected

    That Republicans want to roll society back to the Dark Ages. Now you say you want to roll it back to the Jurassic? Color me surprised.

    up
    Voting is closed. 3

    I do not agree with you that

    I do not agree with you that ppm of c02 in our atmosphere equals society. c02 makes up such a tiny part of our atmosphere that I wonder why anyone would think that society would be defined by it.

    Besides, I said I would like to see 800 ppm of c02, not 1000-3000 which was Jurassic.

    800 ppm of c02 in our atmosphere is the future and the future looks green.

    up
    Voting is closed. 4

    Blue

    The future looks blue at 800 ppm. Or at least your peninsula does.

    up
    Voting is closed. 5

    In the last 100 years c02

    In the last 100 years c02 levels have gone up 70 ppm. Ocean levels here on cape cod have risen one inch in the same time.

    One inch.

    Glacier gonna get me before anything.

    Looks like you all are back to global cooling, chumps.

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    Agree

    By on

    With you on the Beat to Press comment.

    up
    Voting is closed. 8

    Clap Clap Clap

    By on

    CHARLES BUKOWSKI everybody let's thank him again for stopping by to impart on us all those little agenda driven gems. Charles thanks again for your time and may I say reading your newest work is a lukewarm plunge into a depression riddled nightmare and I can't wait to hear more stories about the character that's frustrated with public broadcasting.

    up
    Voting is closed. 9

    Allow me

    For those who follow WGBH, it's no surprise that someone with a difference of an idiotic opinion is quickly escorted out.

    FTFY

    up
    Voting is closed. 47

    This will no doubt elude your comprehension, but...

    By on

    For those who follow WGBH, it's no surprise that someone with a difference of opinion is quickly escorted out.

    Difference of opinion? Nononono. You get to have your own opinion; you don't get to have your own facts.

    up
    Voting is closed. 49

    Science isn't opinion

    By on

    Science doesn't involve opinion. It involves factual observation and methodological proof of a conclusion that something is true. That is why it is so powerful. People who aren't scientists can have armchair opinions about whatever they want but it doesn't change the scientifically proven truth of them.

    Also, thank you for acknowledging Gore's predictive capabilities as this January has been the warmest ever recorded. I'll make you a deal- I'll stop making fun of climate change deniers (because they are idiots) if you will agree that when we can no longer grow enough food to feed ourselves because of drought and extreme weather then you will forgoe eating and not fight me getting your share. Sound good?

    up
    Voting is closed. 23

    GW vs CC

    By on

    O-FISH-L, looks like you're not aware that a) Global Warming and Climate Change are two separate (but related) phenomena, and b) it was deniers, not environmentalists, that sought to change the terminology.

    Global Warming refers to the fact that the average global temperature has risen, and continues to rise. Climate Change refers to the effects of that temperature rise. The decision to use one term for both, and for that term to be Global Warming, came from George W. Bush after right-wing propagandist Frank Luntz conducted a study and found that people had a less negative reaction to "Climate Change" because they believe that "climates always change." Both terms were used widely until the Bush administration focused on "Climate Change."

    up
    Voting is closed. 8

    Indian woman?

    By on

    What does the fact that she is well educated, Indian, or an immigrant have to do with any of this? People from all walks of life, in enormous swaths, refute easily verifiable facts. People believe in invisible sky wizards with circular proof logic, think the Earth is 6000 years old, deny that humans are negatively impacting the environment, refuse to believe they evolved from animals. Having an education and being educated are very different things.

    Why are you ok with a business refusing someone business based on who they marry or the religious opinions of the business owner, but you are enraged by the fact that someone's opinion, in direct opposition to 90% of the scientific community and the FIELD SHE WOULD BE REPORTING IN, was refused employment. Unfortunately in real life, there are no alternative facts - especially in a field that studies them. I guess you probably think it's weird that the Archdioceses of Boston doesn't employ many atheists. What a bunch of close minded assholes!

    up
    Voting is closed. 13

    I've met Mish. She's as cute as the proverbial

    bug in a rug, very sweet in person, and glamorous, to boot.

    But an anti-vaxxer? Sorry, Mish. I expect our real-media reporters to have a basic grasp of science, and that kind of ignorance is potentially lethal to us all, especially our children.

    Promulgating anti-science in the age of Trump -- when flunkies for insane, exploitative assholes like Alex Jones get a seat in the White House briefing room -- has to be categorically rejected now more than ever, especially when the science on the subject is so overwhelming.

    To people like Fish who talk about science in terms of "differences of opinion", GFY. You're a dangerous ignoramus, too.

    up
    Voting is closed. 72

    How does it follow that

    By on

    How does it follow that rejecting the consensus in one particular area equates to not having a basic grasp of science?

    up
    Voting is closed. 4

    Um, that's not how science works.

    You don't get to "reject the consensus". You do get to contribute peer-reviewed research that may have the effect of confirming or altering the current consensus. The more the research piles up, the harder it is to move the needle, but as any trained scientist will tell you, the consensus is never set in stone. There is always room for new theories, new experimentation and observation, new contributions of quantifiable, verifiable, peer-reviewed results.

    Understand that, and you will move in the direction of having a basic grasp of science. As for your garden-variety opinions? You are welcome to them, but they have precisely zero to do with actual science. We're playing football over here, and it has rules: your pogo stick has no place on the field.

    up
    Voting is closed. 16

    The earth is flat was also "settled science" at one time

    By on

    To people like Fish who talk about science in terms of "differences of opinion", GFY. You're a dangerous ignoramus, too.

    .
    The earth is flat (Middle Ages), the "Coming Ice Age" (Newsweek, 1970s), "point of no return in ten years" (Al Gore 2006). With the massive increase in autism potentially caused by infant vaccines scoffed at, scientists like Mish Michaels are fired for exploring the issue. The "settled science" of the left is remarkable. Obviously Mish Michaels would still have a job if she toed the WGHB, big-pharma sponsor's line. Sad.

    Scientists understand that observations are rarely complete—that interpretations often vary. There is usually considerable room for discussion and debate. Debate is as important to science as consensus is to politics. But debate needs to be based on observations, not opinions.

    up
    Voting is closed. 14

    Great quote at end

    By on

    And correct, but observations ARE facts in science. There is more science that aging people having children is increasing birth risks. By all means study vaccines, but with FACTS and valid results.

    up
    Voting is closed. 5

    O-Fish-L is the guy who bet on flat earth in the 17th century.

    The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given.

    3rd Century BC science said Earth was a sphere.

    Demonstration that the Earth is a sphere was accomplished by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation in the 16th century, 1519−1522.

    O-Fish-L is the guy who bet on flat earth in the 17th century.

    up
    Voting is closed. 11

    The Earth Was NEVER Flat

    By on

    Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference over 2200 years ago to within 10% of it's actual size.

    Columbus, like you, embraced alternative facts. He refused to accept Eratosthenes calculation and chose to believe against all evidence that the Earth was much smaller. If it wasn't for the completely unexpected presence of an entire continent, he would have starved to death in the middle of the ocean.

    Perhaps you too should take a long drive into the middle of nowhere without your GPS.

    up
    Voting is closed. 17

    Close

    "The earth is flat" was age-old ignorance for eons. Science came about and demonstrated it wasn't true. The contemporary cabal of withered fucktards tortured and murdered people for telling the truth. Then they died off and the younger generations were more receptive to science.

    It's only natural to wish this process would hurry up sometimes.

    up
    Voting is closed. 46

    The earth was never flat

    That's a more recent repainting of history but nice try.

    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html

    I won't bother with the rest because "debating" you is a waste of time but I will give you one friendly piece of advice. To properly emulate your hero POTUS you need to add an exclamation point after the single word sentence "Sad" that closes your stance if you want to sound like you have a good brain.

    up
    Voting is closed. 28

    His brain

    He has the best brain, the best. Hugely smart.

    up
    Voting is closed. 24

    That's a great article

    TLDR quotes:

    With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

    No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

    up
    Voting is closed. 18

    As an autistic adult, nothing

    By on

    As an autistic adult, nothing makes me feel great like when people would rather have their children die of polio than be UTTELRY CURSED AND RUINED FOREVER WITH AUTISM, better dead than fidgety!!!!!!!!

    up
    Voting is closed. 24

    Worse yet

    The diseases that vaccinations prevent can cause mental retardation and autism/autism-like syndromes.

    Never mind that vaccines absolutely do not cause autism.

    up
    Voting is closed. 9

    Alt facts

    By on

    The Greeks knew the earth was round buddy.

    up
    Voting is closed. 19

    Some Greeks did . . .

    By on

    Some Greeks did . . .

    up
    Voting is closed. 5

    Good grief

    By on

    I think you may need to go back to elementary school. Scientists never said the earth was flat - that was an assertion of dogmatic faith. Science was used to disprove it. Go back to your easy chair old man. We'll take it from here. Thanks.

    Sincerely,

    The younger generation and future rulers of the world.

    up
    Voting is closed. 19

    Global Cooling myth

    By on

    Ah yes, the old "fake news" story that conservative media has been pushing for years - the "alternative fact" that scientists predicted Global Cooling in the 1970s.

    As explained by SkepticalScience.com in 2008, the two most cited articles on which the "Global Cooling" claim is based were a 1974 article in Time Magazine, and a 1975 article in Newsweek. Also, a 1972 article from the National Science Board was selectively quoted in a 2003 op-ed in the Washington Post. Some critical passages left out include: "...it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path [than a new ice-age in 20,000 years]. ... increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface."

    However, in a comprehensive study conducted by William Connelly, Thomas Peterson, and John Fleck (entitled "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus"), we now know that only 7 out of the 49 papers published between 1965 and 1979 dealing with this topic predicted "global cooling." 42 of the 49 papers predicted that CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to Global Warming.

    So why were these 7 papers (as well as Time and Newsweek) predicting Global Cooling? Two reasons:

    1) The temperature data available at the time was skewed toward northern land areas, which did, in fact, show a 30-year trend of cooling. However, we are concerned with "global" data, which we now know about. Using modern scientific techniques, we now know that the average global temperature in the 30 years leading up to the 1970s was relatively steady.

    2) at the time, humans were injecting large numbers of aerosols into the atmosphere. Science shows that aerosols in the atmosphere led to cooling. These scientists based their predictions on assumptions that then-current trends would continue, but we unexpectedly changed our behavior. The amount of aerosols in the atmosphere decreased.

    Modern conservatives are now trying to convince people that scientific techniques haven't advanced at all in the past 45 years (even though they have), and that because they "got it wrong" 45 years ago, we should never trust them. Of course, most scientists did not "get it wrong." Most predicted Global Warming back then, and their predictions have come to pass.

    up
    Voting is closed. 10

    Don't spook him, guys!

    By on

    So far today we've got "anti-vax," "climate change skeptic," and "flat-earther" out of FISH. I bet we can get him to "young earth creationist" and "9/11 was an inside job," but we don't want to risk spooking him, or he'll run back into his burrow and hide.

    up
    Voting is closed. 12

    Why is it

    By on

    Why is it always the meteorologists?

    They don't teach these guys to check the farmer almanac for tomorrow weather, nor to ask around on Twitter for people's opinions on the weather?

    Is meteorology the poor students science path? You would think they get a good schooling where their data comes from and how it's modeled and used.

    up
    Voting is closed. 9

    Because TV stations don't

    By on

    Because TV stations don't hire the smartest ones, just the best-looking ones. I shudder to think what would happen at my work if we hired that way....

    up
    Voting is closed. 9

    What about Tim Kelley @ NECN though?

    He's both not the best looking dude and a climate change denier.

    I'm all for non-attractive people getting these gigs but the climate change denier bit is weird.

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    Physicists, too

    Although I suspect it is for different (actually opposite) reasons.

    There is a fringe of people who call themselves physicists who love to tell all other scientists that their work isn't "real" science because it involves complexities that they don't understand or would choose to ignore for the sake of simplicity (usually involving icky human behaviors or some massive oversimplification of genetic influences).

    With meteorologists, there is a relatively high prevalence of evangelicals (makes sense if you think about it), and that colors the culture for those who are their colleagues.

    What is probably more important: meteorologists track and model phenomena that is incredibly complex, involve enormous numbers of variables (many of them seemingly minor but highly influential), and is in a constant state of global-scale flux. For a meteorologist, it would be natural to think that we somehow missed something in the assessment of a complex biological system, or to conclude that certain biological systems are more influenced by minor exposures than they actually are.

    [edited for grammar]

    up
    Voting is closed. 11

    Three things to add to this:

    By on

    Three things to add to this:

    - Mish is a meteorologist by training, and a mom. She is not schooled in immunology and medicine. She may have her personal beliefs, but can speak as an expert on the subject.

    - Sanjay Gupta, medical correspondent for CNN, IS a doctor. He was asked about the whole vax thing, and if he vaccinated his children. He said he most definitely did vaccinate them. His outlook came from his travels to areas where there were epidemics - Africa, in the midst of the Ebola epidemic, the Far East, where cholera could break out after a hurricane.

    When he spoke to people who lived in fear of getting these terrible diseases, they told him how they wished that there was a vaccine available to protect them.

    - My grandmother died at the age of 28 during a diptheria epidemic in the 1920's. She left behind two little boys, one was my father. At the time, there was no vaccine or treatment for the disease. My dad never got over that.

    My $,02. Mish should stick to the things that she is an expert in - earth sciences

    up
    Voting is closed. 16

    Anti-vaxxers are endangering all our children

    My father had polio. It didn't kill him, or make him live his life out in an iron lung, but it left him with a worsening limp that eventually immobilized him. The reason none of your friends got polio is universal vaccination. Stop that, and you're inviting the return of the disease and all the misery it causes. I hope no one wants to see a half-million people paralyzed or killed every year, as happened in the 1940s and '50s. That could be part of the price paid if the anti-vax people have their way.

    up
    Voting is closed. 17

    Blind spots and soul of my dog

    By on

    Several years ago Nathaniel Abraham was fired from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution because he was did not believe that the theory of evolution was true. He was apparently sufficiently qualified to be hired in the first place. But during the interview process no one asked whether he subscribed to evolution (it was assumed). Abraham sued and lost because believing that evolution is true is part of the job since the job involves work based on evolutionary theory.

    So even a scientist can have a blind spot in his science. That blind spot negatively affected his ability to do research that is in part based on theory of evolution.

    Would this apply to a science reporter? Can Ms Michael's separate her blind spot concerning immunology from reporting on science issues? If she could then perhaps firing her is unfair. On the other hand if her belief biased her against reporting on immunological science then in at least in that respect I would think her belief might conflict with her ability to do her job.

    That she also denies in human made climate change makes the issue worse. Can a reporter who is not an expert in either science (although I would hopes knows more about each being a reporter), who claims that theories accepted by most scientists are false, be a good reporter on those topics at WGBH?

    Considering that immunology and human made climate change are major scientific areas of popular concern I can see that her blind sports may interfere with her doing the job. To me this is a hard question and perhaps requires a judge to way the matter if she sues for discrimination?

    I would think that it is comparable to whether a lawyer can be reasonably expected to defend a client who he or she suspects is guilty? Public defenders face this question. There the stakes are higher but I think is a comparable question.

    Of the soul of my dog: Most theological systems deny that dogs have souls (although I wonder what is the actual definition in theological circles). Yet when I look in my dog's eyes and see the devotion, watch her play, see that she has emotions and see that she can distinguish and respond with various responses depending on who in front of her, then I have to ask how can a creature so intelligent in its relations with the world, and one that is affectionate and without judgement of human beings (she is far more loving than many people) not have a soul, or be denied legal protections since by her affection and joy contributes far more to human happiness in the world than many people? But the science and law does not agree. Yet while I consider myself to be more rational than average I also see the possibility of reality beyond the rationally apprehensible. So I can be rational and still believe in what otherwise is considered the irrational.

    So to me the question is can a person as a reporter do a good job of reporting on areas where she personally disagrees? If not then she is not qualified for the job. But if so then she is.

    up
    Voting is closed. 6

    Most _monotheistic_ theological systems

    > Most theological systems deny that dogs have souls

    Eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism do not put humans in one spiritual category and all other living beings in another. ;-)

    up
    Voting is closed. 9