I have become increasingly concerned by the number of Professors that are popping up purporting to be scholars with respect to the ideology that suspends all reality so as to assert a belief in “flying horses”.
Islam.
I would accept them if they stayed in the realm of theocracy and focussed on such issues as “how many angels can fit on a pin head” or the method that Mohammed used to mount the buraq.
It is preposterous that such theocrats are given the same title “Professor” as those who follow scientific academic method.
I have decided that I cannot let these political un-academic and un-rigorous intellectuals continue to claim the “high ground” by promoting “Professors” from within their ranks to gain merit for their politically financed and political activist propaganda.
What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Ganda.
Professor Bolton.
For my reasoning please read on.
A female professor from the renowned Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, says that Muslim men are allowed by Allah to rape non-Muslim women in order to “humiliate” them. Professor Suad Saleh made the bold claims while being interviewed on Al-Hayat TV. The professor says that the rape is allowed during times of “legitimate war” between Muslims and their enemies.
LiveLeak posted the startling video which shows the interview of the Islamic female professor Suad Saleh as she spoke on Al-Hayat TV. In the video, Suad Saleh is seemingly trying to discourage the purchase of slaves from Asian countries for sexual purposes. Instead, she says that Allah has given the Muslim men a way to have sexual relations with slave women that is “legitimate.” Saleh suggests that the only time it is acceptable for Muslim men to enslave a woman for sexual purposes is during a “legitimate war” between Muslims and their enemies such as that with Israel. Therefore, the female Islamic professor says that enslaving Israeli women and raping them would be entirely acceptable and encouraged.
I reject such statements. They have no academic merit. They do not represent western civilisation’s idea of who or what a “Professor” is or does.
I have observed such theocrats expound in recent years,”... that the world does not rotate, otherwise how would jet planes manage to fly against the rotation...” And “That women are second class citizens who if they drive motor cars will be rightfully subject to rape.” And other such professorial scholarly theses.
Yet when such “suspenders of reality” are quoted in the media they are given the title they assume “Professor.”
I reject the dilution of what it means to be a “Professor” in a Western University.
I know that I am fighting a wholly losing battle to reverse that dilution.
If you cannot beat them. Join them.
I assert that academic promotions are now based so much on political persuasion that Academic merit has been vilified, disparaged and denigrated. A primary reason being that Politically Appointed Academics are very effective authoritative “quotes” for political purposes: As one political observer puts it:
“I am increasingly appalled by the lack of academic/statistical rigor in "research" based on "surveys", from the aspects of (1) the selection of samples (often a self-selecting on-line sample, obviously restricted to those who have on-line access - my mother does not - and those who read the particular article, with respondents likely to be those with firm opinions either way or some above average interest in the topic), (2) the lack of objectivity/neutrality of questions (not as bad as "do you still beat your wife", but still bad, and (3) as you highlight poor/biased/restricted analysis/presentation of the results.
An example - like almost everyone you would have heard, and heard, that "97% of scientists agree with man-made climate change" (or similar words).
The 97% figure was first proposed in 2009 in an article by Maggie Zimmerman and Peter Doran, based on the results of a two-question online survey sent to 10,000 selected scientists, from which they received 3,000 replies. How representative of the 10,000 the 3,000 replies were was not addressed.<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
They then culled the 3,000 to 79 that they now deemed “experts”, which begs the question as to why they sent out 10,000 questionnaires, and how just 79 were deemed to be relevant for their report. An obvious possibility is they determined what result they wanted and set about producing it – and to heck with rigor.
Of the selected 79 (out of 3,000 replies, out of 10,000 sought out for opinion), 77 said they believed GW was man-made, and subsequent claims have stuck religiously to the 97% myth.
So there you have the basis of the 97% figure – a simple survey, 6+ years ago, from 2,5% of the thousands of answers received, from 0.8% of those invited to take part, and no significant, if any, temperature rise in those 6+ years. Yet it is parroted as gospel by "journalists" like Laine Anderson, politicians like Hanson-Young and others who have zero idea where the 97% figure came from..”
A recent (Jan 2016) University of South Australia Survey highlights politics overwhelming academic rigour:
Islamophobia Social Distance and the Fear of Terrorism in Australia.
University of SA Preliminary Report.
Under the Supervision of an Islamic Professor and funded by an Islamic body, The report authors grossly , repeat grossly misinterpret and report data.
They “weight data” “apply odds ratios” write off results, apply unstated “psychological differences” form conclusions on low data sets, apply “exponential of estimates” and use “unobserved underlying intervals”.
Table 36. The Authors state: “The unemployed and people not in the labour force are significantly more fearful of terrorism than those who are gainfully employed. In other words economic insecurity adversely affects fear of terrorism.”
This is simply not true on their own data. 51% of employed are extremely worried about terrorism. 58.46% of employed are “very much worried”, 60.13% are moderately worried and 59.76 are a little worried. The only category left is “not worried” into which only 197 people of the 990 surveyed fitted. Of that very small number there was 71/21 split in favour of the unemployed.
The report authors grossly , I repeat grossly, manipulate and misinterpret the data.
Australian Cultural Suicide at work. University of South Australia (with a State 2.2% Muslim Population) has an
"International Centre for Muslim and Non-Muslim understanding."
We all know that "Muslim" translates fairly accurately to the English meaning of "One who has submitted - to Allah according to Mohommeds ideas about this imaginary friend"
So the Institution that we have set up with a Professor in Charge is called.
South Australian International Centre for those who have submitted and those of you who have not (yet) submitted.
And guess who pays for that?
In its latest report, out just now, I do not see much about how those who have submitted need to understand Australian non religious society and so-far I see an awful lot about judging us as having an irrational fear bordering on a pyschiatric problem over them. This is their starting point as the report is headed "Islamophobia"
They cite with approval a report from Runnymede Trust. The Runnymede Trust is a left-wing think tank founded in 1968. The quoted Runnymede Trust report begins by describing the nature of anti-Muslim prejudice and draws a key distinction between closed views of Islam on the one hand and open views on the other.
Islamophobia is equated with closed views “Racial violence is all of a piece therefore with anti-Muslim prejudice.” The key recommendation is that this must be explicitly recognised in whatever new legislation
may be introduced. A legal term such as ‘religious and racial violence’ is required.
Yet the Uni SA questions show that when the questions are about “Muslims” and not about “ Islam” just 6.6% agree they are uncomfortable with Muslim people.
I say this shows Australians know the difference between ordinary Aussie Muslims and the totalitarian ideology.
No questions are asked about how Australians feel about “Islam” even though Islam and not just Muslims are an integral part of Runnymede’s definition.
When questions were asked only about people, “Muslims” Only 1.5% Australians are labelled as highly Islamphobic. That is to say – having a closed view and not able to listen to contrary positions.
State by State analysis showed that SA registered not a single high level islamophobe when questioned about Muslim People (as opposed to the ideology). (nor does NT or ACT).
The assertion that the phobia increases with age is just not right. It is not sustainable on their own tabled stats.
Taking the mid level of their scale of phobia level, 3rd out of 5 levels.
18 to 20 year olds reached a scale of 22.5
This was much greater than 25 to 34 year olds at 16.5
It was Greater than 35 -44 year olds 22.3
and Much Greater than 45-54 year olds 14.4,
Greater than 55-64 year olds 20.9
Nearly as much as 65-74 year olds 24.1
And is only an accurate assertion of those who are 75 years plus at 42.7 who are basically twice as concerned about “Muslims” as the rest but were not asked to distinguish between “Muslims” and the Ideology of Islam.
The analysis of phobia by political affiliation is asserted even though the writers (in the report but not the summary) state that their multivariate analysis makes political party affiliation “less apparent” As a matter of (their) facts Greens were the Highest level 2 Islamophobics even beating “no party affiliation.”
There is a very significant question about the reliability of the results. When Religion was used as a measure of phobia Jews came out with a zero on levels 1,3,4 and 5. (100% level 2) But only two Jews were surveyed. This compares with those who followed Islam who registered 28.5% level 2 Islamophobia and 71.6% level 1 with 26 “Islam” people being surveyed.
In other words those who identified as “Islam” according to the definitions in the report “hate themselves”
By the time we get to table thirteen, “levels of worry about terrorism”, the proper conclusion to be drawn from the data is “who knows what it means?” In the alternative we could conclude that those with level one Islamophobia, which includes 71.6% of “Islams” surveyed, are 51% worried about terrorism.
Controversially the authors of the report “write off” as not significant that the majority of those surveyed who measured level 2 or 3 on their “phobia” scale (70%) answered that they felt their community “did help neighbours” . Perhaps the authors did not want to conclude that community minded people could still be phobic according to their definitions.
In other words, the author’s ignored the fact that those they labelled as “Islamophobes” were otherwise community minded. (table 14 page 15)
It also appears that the authors “have reason to believe that ...psychological differences between these points are not equal.” Who knows what those unstated reasons are? They are not expressed in the report. What follows on page 16 of the report is obfuscation beyond measure. They say that the report is a reversion to “exponential of estimates” of [expected results] using “unobserved underlying intervals”.
In other words they have mucked about with the data.
From this point in the report it appears that data is “weighted” according to these beliefs and estimates and unobserved assumptions. As a holder of three degrees I cannot be bothered “unweighting” the obfuscated data or the “odds ratios” applied to raw data.
I suspect that is the expectation. I have no doubt my critique will be attacked for this.
When it comes to obtuse terms like “social distance of Muslims” they are simply not supported by any raw datum. Even so (see table 29) huge lumps of flocculated data which are inconsistent with the reports surmised “estimates” are written off as being not statistically significant by the authors
.
As to terrorism out of 1,000 only 197 Australians do not worry.
Table 36. The Authors state: “The unemployed and people not in the labour force are significantly more fearful of terrorism than those who are gainfully employed. In other words economic insecurity adversely affects fear of terrorism.”
This is simply not true on their own data.
51% of employed are extremely worried about terrorism. 58.46% of employed are “very much worried” 60.13% are moderately worried and 59.76 are a little worried. The only category left is “not worried” into which only 197 people of the 990 surveyed fitted. Of that very small number there was 71/21 split in favour of the unemployed.
The report authors grossly , repeat grossly misinterpret and report the data.
The raw data is:
Worry about terrorism (N = 996)
Not at all 18.3%
A little 31.1%
Moderately 27.5%
Very much 13.9%
Extremely 9.2%
To add that all up . More that 80% of Australians do worry about terrorism.
I suggest that is why the authors go to so much effort to “weight data” “apply odds ratios” write off results, apply unstated “psychological differences” form conclusions on low data (two Jewish respondents) and apply “exponential of estimates” and use “unobserved underlying intervals”.
21st January 2016
I have decided that I cannot let these political un-academic and un-rigorous intellectuals continue to claim the “high ground” by promoting “Professors” from within their ranks to gain merit for their politically financed and political activist propaganda.
What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Ganda.
Professor John W Bolton.