I hope that someone undertakes the task of systematically analyzing how the SBOE majority engaged with different speakers testifying in the November 19 session.
They spent lots of time engaging with their supporter, while vastly more qualified speakers were rushed from the microphone without a single question (e.g., Ellington).
It could be demonstrated that these guys are not engaged in any good-faith effort to understand the matters their deciding, by leargning from people who know stuff that they don’t. Instead, they’re using this for two purpose:
- giving critics their chance to provide their “input,” so it can’t be said they weren’t given the opportunity; but of more interest to them
- engaging with supporters who might give them ammunition in the form of talk points or arguments they haven’t thought of yet.
Again, this raises the the “Kansas problem” of how pro-science experts can engage without helping them get away with a process that’s already committee to a predetermined outcome.