Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8125 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-17-2014 11:35 AM
115 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat, Spiritual Anarchist
Post Volume:
Total: 736,127 Year: 21,968/28,606 Month: 1,055/1,410 Week: 257/524 Day: 21/61 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 207 (145051)
09-27-2004 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
09-27-2004 12:19 PM


quote:
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.

added by edit:

quote:
Percy:
The identity of the peer reviewers is not known, and that they supposedly "found merit" in the article has made everyone very suspicious that Sternberg hand-chose the reviewers because he knew they were sympathetic.

Another baseless assertion. Is this all you have?

quote:
Percy:
Sternberg says the reviewers recommended changes, which Meyer then made, but the article is so bad as science that one can only shudder at the thought of how bad the pre-review version must have been.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 12:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:49 PM ID man has responded
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 1:01 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 207 (145053)
09-27-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:49 PM


[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:
crashfrog:
What evidence?

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:
http://www.rsternberg.net/

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 à 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 people—the managing editor and an associate editor—be 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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:49 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:58 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 1:05 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 207 (146043)
09-30-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Percy
09-27-2004 1:05 PM


quote:
Percy:
Sternberg's statement concerns his authority as editor. At no time was he given carte blanche to violate the journal's stated purpose.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 1:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM ID man has responded
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 2:13 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 207 (146070)
09-30-2004 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Silent H
09-30-2004 12:57 PM


quote:
holmes:
Can't you see that there is a world of difference between deviating from purely taxonomic issues, and going into controversial theoretical issues with biological science itself?

Keep moving the goalposts. That is all you have.

quote:
holmes:
Moreso, that the decision to go ahead with such articles were handled only by the editor and a friend?

You mean another scientist who was on the committee? LoL! Also don't forget the three qualified biologists who reviewed the article.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

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" author—no 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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 12:57 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 2:35 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 207 (146090)
09-30-2004 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
09-27-2004 1:01 PM


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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 1:01 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 207 (146132)
09-30-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
09-30-2004 2:13 PM


ID man writes:
Precedent had already been set, no carte blanche required: ...etc...

quote:
Percy:
The topics Sternberg mentioned are all closely related to taxonomy.

Did you come to this conclusion by reading the articles?

quote:
Percy:
But, of course, no one really believes Sternberg's incompetent. He knew an article on ID was outside the bounds of his editorial authority, but he abused that authority and published Meyer's article anyway.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 2:13 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 3:05 PM ID man has responded
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:07 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 207 (146144)
09-30-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Silent H
09-30-2004 2:35 PM


quote:
holmes:
The accusation (by the people IN CHARGE OF THE JOURNAL I MIGHT ADD) is that he allowed a paper to be published which deviated from the journal's purpose.

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:
holmes:
As well as being a lousy entry into getting journal publication (the science was lacking), that specific journal also seemed poorly suited as a venue for the debate.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 2:35 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:44 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 207 (146153)
09-30-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
09-30-2004 3:05 PM


quote:
Percy:
Look again at your Sternberg quote. It doesn't provide any articles. It just a list of taxonomy-related topic areas.

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:
Percy:
You posted some specious argumentation that has already been rebutted several times.

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:
Percy:
Your tactic of using denigration as a substitute for evidence and argument grew tiresome a long time ago

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:
Percy:
This is off topic, and aren't you already discussing this or a similar issue in another thread?

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 3:05 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 4:37 PM ID man has responded
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 10:29 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 207 (146154)
09-30-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Silent H
09-30-2004 3:07 PM


quote:
holmes:
Essentially Ratzsch conceded that in his comments that ID (in general) has not proven anything and its next step is proving criteria.

Science is not about proof. if it were then the theory of evo would have been discounted long ago.

quote:
holmes:
It has also been pointed out that Behe did not sufficiently tie IC to SC.

Dembski has.

quote:
holmes:
Perhaps you can show which criteria he clearly setup as valid criteria?

”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:
holmes:
Why?

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:07 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 4:02 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 207 (146235)
09-30-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
09-30-2004 4:37 PM


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:
Percy:
You haven't presented any evidence.

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:
Percy:
How about describing for us how the designer arrived at his design, and how he went about modifying the DNA of the bacteria to implement it.

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:
Percy:
Sternberg isn't a member violating Forum Guidelines by abusing fellow members.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 4:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:01 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 7:36 PM ID man has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 207 (146237)
09-30-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Silent H
09-30-2004 4:02 PM


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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 4:02 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:05 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 207 (146239)
09-30-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Silent H
09-30-2004 3:44 PM


quote:
holmes:
In an practical/temporal sense an editor has been put in charge of a journal's content by a group of people. More accurately though, an editor is NOT objectively in charge.

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 à 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 people—the managing editor and an associate editor—be 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:
holmes:
but does not change whether it should have been in the journal according to its subject matter.

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:
holmes:
I have already stated that pure ID could be scientific. However the leaders of the ID movement are using it to further nonscientific political/religious goals.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:44 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 7:28 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 207 (146285)
09-30-2004 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


we all knew this was coming
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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 8:14 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2004 9:15 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 207 (146288)
09-30-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
09-30-2004 7:36 PM


quote:
Percy:
They're anonymous, you know nothing of their qualifications.

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:
Percy:
Neither McDiarmid nor any of the officers of BSW knew about the ID article before publication. Any responsible editor would have checked before running an article that not only went against the established scientific focal area (taxonomy) of the journal, but also had so much potential to embarrass this previously well-respected journal.

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"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 7:36 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 10:16 PM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 9:20 AM ID man has not yet responded
 Message 180 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2004 2:50 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014