|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Meyer's Hopeless Monster | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: The evidence says you are full of it Percy. No abuse of authority occurred. added by edit:
quote: Another baseless assertion. Is this all you have?
quote: That is your opinion and it may be shared by some people. However opinions are just that. This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:51 AM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
[qs]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy: What happened is that the editor, Sternberg, abused his authority to include an article not appropriate to the journal's stated purpose, and not good science. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence says you are full of it Percy. No abuse of authority occurred. quote: Read the links I posted. The evidence is also in one of my recent posts in this thread (check today's postings). But here it is again:Forbidden! During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it. Needless to say, the associated editor was upset, and denied that I had the authority to do this. In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts. The Council asked me, moreover, to draft a formal process document describing the procedures of the Proceedings including their ruling on the role of the managing editor. The document is still in process, and I expect to complete a draft for the Council's review and approval in the coming weeks. At no time during my nearly three years as managing editor did I ever ask the Council for its input on any editorial decision regarding any particular paper. Nor did the Council itself or anyone on the Council intimate to me that the Council ought to be in any way involved in editorial decision-making with regard to particular papers. Even in its recent post-Meyer minor revision of its publication rules, the Council only requires that two peoplethe managing editor and an associate editorbe involved in the decision to publish paper. As will be seen, an equivalent policy was applied to the Meyer paper, as I consulted with a member of the Council before making a decision to publish the paper. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Precedent had already been set, no carte blanche required:
Bitten And, indeed, Sternberg notes that the journal has regularly published articles that go beyond pure taxonomy. The kinds of studies published include: Comparative cytogenetics, which compares the characteristics of chromosomes of different organisms. Such characteristics include the size, shape, banding pattern and number of chromosomes. Developmental studies, which are studies that examine the development or growth of one of more organisms. Phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, which are proposed evolutionary histories for one or more groups of organisms as well as the classifications that are based on those histories. Reviews of faunal groups, which are essentially reviews of how certain animals have been classified, as well as their relationship to one another. Now what are you going to complain about? This message has been edited by ID man, 09-30-2004 11:37 AM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Keep moving the goalposts. That is all you have.
quote: You mean another scientist who was on the committee? LoL! Also don't forget the three qualified biologists who reviewed the article. Forbidden!
Summary of key points Many distortions and inaccuracies are circulating in the press and on the web regarding the publication of the Meyer paper. The key facts are: I hold two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology, one in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology. I have published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific books and publications. My current areas of research and writing are primarily in the areas of evolutionary theory and systematics. In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself, something I had done before in other appropriate cases. In order to avoid making a unilateral decision on a potentially controversial paper, however, I discussed the paper on at least three occasions with another member of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW), a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History. Each time, this colleague encouraged me to publish the paper despite possible controversy. According to the official description of the Proceedings published in each issue, the journal "contains papers bearing on systematics in the biological sciences (botany, zoology, and paleontology)." The journal has published in areas such as comparative cytogenetics, phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, developmental studies, and reviews of faunal groups. In addition, evolutionary scenarios are frequently presented at the end of basic systematic studies. Even a casual survey of papers published in the Proceedings and the occasional Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington will reveal many titles in such areas. Thus, the topic of Meyer's paper was well within the scope of the journal. The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]." Following my resignation in October 2003, a new managing editor for the Proceedings was selected in May of 2004, and the transition from my editorship to the new editor has taken place over the past few months. By the time that the controversy emerged I was finishing up my last editorial responsibilities. Thus, my stepping down had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. Although it is irritating to have to respond to ad hominem arguments rather than arguments on the issues, I will state for the record that I do not accept the claims of young-earth creationism. Rather, I am a process structuralist. Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respect. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review. Doubts on whether the paper was outside the scope of the journal:
Aftermath Recently I was asked by a reporter if I felt in retrospect that publication of the Meyer paper was "inappropriate." I responded as follows: I'm taking inappropriate to mean one of two things, either a faux pas such as wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or something politically incorrect. The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. Now his ideas are considered politically incorrect or "anti-scientific" by some. But since I don't do politically correct science and since I think that human reason (i.e., science) is capable of at least considering questions about ultimate causes, no, I don't think his paper was inappropriate in any meaningful sense.
Continuing on, I provided my view of the range of reactions that I have observed among colleagues, which seems to me a suitable ending for this overview of the controversy: I've received four kinds of responses regarding the Meyer article. The first is one of extreme hostility and anger that the peer-review process was not barred to a "creationist" authorno questions asked (a minority view). The second is what I'd term the herd instinct: this response arises when some key people (often members of the first group) are upset. Some people, once they begin to feel the heat from individuals with strong opinions, feign being upset too or actually become upset, for fear that they'll seem to be a "supporter" of an unpopular or despised position. Many of these individuals initially displayed no concern or qualms about the paper until some loud voices displayed their discontent. Those in the third category don't really care about the issue one way or the other, because it doesn't impact their research. In terms of population size, groups two and three are by far the largest. The fourth group consists of those who found the paper "informative," "stimulating," "thought-provoking," (real quotes I've heard from colleagues about the paper), including some who are in agreement with some of Meyer's ideas. Many members of the third and fourth groups have told me that in their opinion sooner or later the design issue will have to be debated in a reasoned manner. Which group do you belong to holmes? "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Percy, How do we know that that Roy wasn't coerced into writing what you posted? Why should he be trusted and not Sternberg?
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
ID man writes: Precedent had already been set, no carte blanche required: ...etc... quote: Did you come to this conclusion by reading the articles?
quote: I have posted evidence to the contrary- that he did not abuse his authority and the Meyer's article was inside the bounds of the journal. As for the AAAS I would say they wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the face nor would they understand the criteria which Behe clearly put forth. Where is the credible scientific evidence that shows the vision system can result from RM & NS? "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. as for in charge- is not the editor in charge of the content of the journal he/ she edits?
Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]." Why didn't the President say something at that time? Why did he wait for the sh_t to hit the fan, then react? Again I take umbrage with your "IDIOT" theory bull. Why do you have to do that? Idiots usually mock what they can't understand or comprehend. In this case thyat would be you.
quote: Now this directly impacts the reviewers. I would doubt your scientific credentials to make a determination on Meyer's paper. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Comparative cytogenetics, which compares the characteristics of chromosomes of different organisms. Such characteristics include the size, shape, banding pattern and number of chromosomes. Developmental studies, which are studies that examine the development or growth of one of more organisms. Phylogenetic hypotheses and classifications, which are proposed evolutionary histories for one or more groups of organisms as well as the classifications that are based on those histories. Reviews of faunal groups, which are essentially reviews of how certain animals have been classified, as well as their relationship to one another.
The above go beyond pure taxonomy.
quote: That is not so. The arguments were not specious and have not been refuted. Rebuttals are not refutations. the evidence has been presented and ignored.
quote: Your tactics against Sternberg have also grown tiresome. So now what do we do? When people say that the evidence has not been presented, that is pure bull. Now it has been presented in a peer-reviewed journal. When people say the criteria has not been presented that again is bull and a downright lie. How else does someone deal with liars and decievers except to point out that they are liars?
Where is the credible scientific evidence that shows the vision system can result from RM & NS? quote: I understand that exposing the typical double-standards are off limits. And yes, although to no avail, this is being discussed elsewhere. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Science is not about proof. if it were then the theory of evo would have been discounted long ago.
quote: Dembski has.
quote: Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. (indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle) I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike Behe As for the AAAS I would say they wouldn't know evidence if it hit them in the face quote: The positive evidence for ID has been presented and according to what Percy posted the AAAS states that the evidence doesn't exist. It is that simple. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
That is not so. The arguments were not specious and have not been refuted. Rebuttals are not refutations. the evidence has been presented and ignored. quote: I am talking about the evidence pertaining to this thread. The evidence that the Meyer's paper was not off topic for the journal. The evidence that Sternberg did not abuse any power. The evidence that the paper went through peer-review.
quote: Talk about "off topic"! ID is NOT about the designer or how the designer designed. Anyone who knows about ID would know that. BTW no one says the designer had to modify the DNA of any organism. That is not what ID says.
Your tactics against Sternberg have also grown tiresome. So now what do we do? quote: The AAAS are fellow members? holmes calling the ID theory an "IDIOT" theory is abuse aimed at IDists. I am an IDist. That is abuse. Have you called him on that? I understand trying to keep things on topic and will abide by that. However if you let other people abuse IDists or Creationists, which is common here, then you shouldn't jump on IDists and Creationists for doing the same to evolutionists. I apologize for going off on tangents. Back to the topic: Meyer's article is titled:The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Taxonomic and taxonomy seem pretty similar to me.
The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. - R. Sternberg Then we have people saying the Meyer's paper wasn't scientific. To this Sternberg responds:
After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. IOW 4 qualified scientists say it was worthy of publication. They trump the people posting here. Then you posted an email from Roy McDiarmid. Your email is contradicted by what Sternberg posts:
Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]". OK now we are back on topic. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
holmes let's get back on topic. I will deal with your BS about Del in another thread.
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Once again:
During my tenure as managing editor some problems arose in the process. In one case I strongly disagreed with an associate editor in his handling of a paper. To deal with the problem, I took control of the paper again, had it reviewed and edited, and published it. Needless to say, the associated editor was upset, and denied that I had the authority to do this. In the aftermath of this controversy I met with the Council of the BSW and asked them to clarify and make explicit the rights and responsibility of the managing editor vis vis the associate editors. At a meeting in November 2002, a near-unanimous Council backed me up completely and formally decided that the managing editor has control over every aspect of the Proceedings and can choose and supervise the associate editors at his or her discretion. The Council ruled that the managing editor has the final say in the publication of manuscripts. The Council asked me, moreover, to draft a formal process document describing the procedures of the Proceedings including their ruling on the role of the managing editor. The document is still in process, and I expect to complete a draft for the Council's review and approval in the coming weeks. At no time during my nearly three years as managing editor did I ever ask the Council for its input on any editorial decision regarding any particular paper. Nor did the Council itself or anyone on the Council intimate to me that the Council ought to be in any way involved in editorial decision-making with regard to particular papers. Even in its recent post-Meyer minor revision of its publication rules, the Council only requires that two peoplethe managing editor and an associate editorbe involved in the decision to publish paper. As will be seen, an equivalent policy was applied to the Meyer paper, as I consulted with a member of the Council before making a decision to publish the paper. quote: The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. and one off topic:
quote: And your evidence for this is what? "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
The Discovery Institute has responded to the Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry Response to Stephen Meyer's Peer-Reviewed Article. The first of several proposed responses.
One Long Bluff First, their supposed rebuttal begins with -- and is characterized throughout by -- a condescending tone and personal attacks on Meyer's motives. Second, GME claim that Meyer's article contains "serious mistakes" that include "errors in facts and reasoning. Yet, as we will show, GME misunderstand and/or misrepresent important aspects of Meyer's argument. This calls into question the relevance of some of their critiques and their overall judgment about the quality of Meyer’s reasoning. Third, GME do offer a potentially significant criticism. They claim that Meyer fails to discuss scientific literature that refutes his main claims. And, indeed, they provide a list of scientific citations that ostensibly solve the central problems that Meyer’s essay addresses, namely, the origin of genetic information and the origin of morphological novelty. As they put it, "Meyer's paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature." To someone unacquainted with the scientific literature, GME’s list of citations list might seem impressive. An actual reading of those citations, however, shows that they fail to support GME's claims. Indeed, GME appear to be engaged in what might be called "literature bluffing." enjoy "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, "Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article]." Your email buddy agrees with the decision of the reviewers. Also ask your email buddy if they did indeed have the qualifications Sternberg says:
After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication. quote: He did NOT go against the scope of the journal. That much is obvious. BTW my initials are AJ not JP(?). "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024