(This is a new thread to deal with the claims of fraud which were made by Skeptic in Message 175. Skeptick is relpying to Message 173 of the thread by Sylas)
Skeptick writes:
Sylas writes:
You said fraud. That was wrong; actually it was error and hype.
Absolute bogus. You could never sell that to a jury, even with Clarence Darrow as your defender. The motive was there, as both you and I pointed out in quotes. Of course, motive alone is not enough to show guilt. But the part about what "a reasonable man would think" has been totally ignored here. If an employee shows up for work, punches his timecard at 08:00 AM and works for 4 hours and then punches out to go home at 12:00 NOON, but notices that the timeclock somehow "skipped" forward to 7:30 PM, what is the employee supposed to do? That's right, the employee is supposed to "do the right thing" and report his time accurately and write down "4 hours" and report the occurrence to his boss immediately. But if the employee says "hmmm, wow. Timeclock says I worked 11.5 hours today. Good thing, too, cuz I really need the money for bills this month." If the employee then writes down 11.5 hours worked (because of the timeclock "error"), what will his boss say when he catches this "error"? The employee can count on being terminated. The employee had a "motive" to report extra hours, just like Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn did with that pig's tooth (as you yourself pointed out). How in blazes can an employee claim 11.5 hours when he only worked four? How in blazes can a scientist claim a "missing link" when all he found was a TOOTH? Then blame it on an overzealous artist (or newspaper editor who gave the order). You make it sound like it was the "artist" who came up with the "tooth-to-man" story. The SCIENTISTS came up with the story, the artist drew a picture about THE STORY that he received from the SCIENTISTS. It was the SCIENTISTS with a MOTIVE that conjured up Nebraska man, not media hype.
Skeptick's timesheet analogy only makes sense if Osborn deliberately chose to misrepresent the tooth as being from an ape because he could get away with it. If this was the case, then I certainly agree that it would be fraud. But that is
not the case, and no argument has been given for thinking it is the case.
Osborn was a scientist. He knew more data would become available. He pushed hard for more data and study himself. He sent casts of the tooth to many other scientists for them to examine for themselves. He sent a collecting expedition. He encouraged other famous palaeontologists to collect at the site, and went himself as well. Considerable fossil evidence of real palaeontologic value and evolutionary relevance was found; but that evidence disproved the earlier identification of the tooth as from a primate.
Osborn's actions are completely inconsistent with fraud, and reveal the insulting timesheet analogy to be pernicious nonsense.
Osborn is certainly not immune from criticism! The nonsense about fraud is inflated rhetoric worthy of nothing but contempt; but real issues can be raised about his competence.
John Alroy, a palaeontologist at Santa Barabara, describes him as
"One of the worst taxonomists in the history of vertebrate palaeontology" (link). This is harsh; but it has some basis. The rash and premature description of
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (aka Nebraska Man) is his most famous error. His tendency to premature identification also lead to the naming of several distinct dinosaur species which were later combined. Another famous incident is Osborn's involvement in the mounting of
Apatosaurus at the museum with a head taken from a different dinosaur. The story is available on-line
here. On the other hand, Osborn did also make real contributions to palaeontology and to the museum. Like any of us, a full evaluation of the man shows good and bad.
What if we ignore bad analogies, and see what substantive basis is provided for the term
fraud, in the case of Nebraska Man?
There is no basis. The most Skeptick can muster is a claim that Osborn described
Hesperopithecus as a missing link; but this also is just another error by Skeptic; it is simply not true. Smith did speculate in that direction, but Osborn was more circumspect... as Skeptick would know if he looked into these things with more care. Osborn explicitly cautioned that Smith was being too optimistic.
Osborn actually described
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii as an
anthropoid ape. In his article in Nature magazine, written a few months after first receiving the tooth, the first paragraph includes this sentence:
One of my friends, Prof. G. Elliot Smith, has perhaps shown too great optimism in his most interesting newspaper and magazine articles on Hesperopithecus, ...
Later in the article, Osborn's formal description says:
The Hesperopithecus molar cannot be said to resemble any known type of human molar very closely. It is certainly not closely related to Pithecanthropus erectus in the structure of the molar crown...It is therefore a new and independent type of Primate, and we must seek more material before we can determine its relationships.
These extracts are available in
Wolf and Mellett; and in
An Essay on a Pig Roast by SJ Gould. A further extract, as supplied by
Foley, reads
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae."
Note that there is a significant distinction between the informal terms "ape-man" and "man-ape". The first term is generally taken to denote human ancestors, or close relatives thereof. The second term is an synonym of "anthropoid ape" (anthropoid means
man-like) and covers many modern apes as well.
In his rhetorical battles with Bryan, Osborn refers to "man-apes", but not to "missing links".
Skeptick charges that I
make it sound like it was the "artist" who came up with the "tooth-to-man" story. Actually, I simply described the plain facts relating to the picture, to show that Skeptick's sarcasm was misplaced. The picture was not by scientists, and was it not based on scientific extrapolation from a tooth. It was, as a matter of simple fact, drawn by an artist based on the artist's own knowledge of
Pithecanthropus. The picture was media hype. I was also clear that it was a scientist (but Smith; not Osborn) who speculated about human ancestry.
It's just too bad that these facts are inconvenient to your theory; but that's life. When you work from secondary sources and fail to check your information, then you will make mistakes. Don't try and blame me for that.
The closing of Skeptick's remarks quoted above once more simply refer to the errors by some scientists and hype by the media. We knew that already. That is what
I am saying.
Now, if evolution had a little better reputation, say if Nebraska man was only one of a "couple" of frauds and hoaxes over the decades, then maybe I would give you the benefit of a doubt. But the evolutionist camp has a rap sheet longer that I feel like listing right now (all of which are readily available from multiple sources. The frauds and hoaxes and forgeries still continue in our day).
Start a new thread and discuss them, then. I dare you. This time, try these simple steps to avoid going off the deep end.
- Cite the sources you actually use.
- Check your information by following up a range of other sources, and if at all possible go to the primary references and check for yourself.
Fraud is a very serious charge indeed, and you should be ashamed at the cavalier manner in which you have tackled it in this instance.
If you respond to this, pay close attention to what you have claimed and what corrections have been made to your claims.
They're not corrections. Just different spins and interpretations, like in a courtroom. I look at several sources from both camps, including primary sources themselves (I have plenty of my own hard and electronic copies, including OoS and DoM). I then look at what both sides have presented and, like a jury, make a decision. I have disagreed with SEVERAL creationist arguments in the past, and will contiune to weigh the evidence and make judgements. The Democrats and Rebublicans don't agree on alot of issues. Each camp thinks they're viewpoint is correct. Can YOU tell me who is correct? I've quoted several sources, but this is a debate forum, not electronic practice for term papers with tons of footnotes. ...
This is forum is available world wide, and it is worth taking a bit of care with presentation. I don't want "tons of footnotes"; but I do suggest that you present the actual sources you use. It's not hard, and it's not onerous, and it is pretty basic for substantive written debates.
I know there are many views available, but their quality is highly variable. Some of your extracts I cannot verify at present; so a source would be useful. Your quotes from Osborn are obviously secondary (as are mine). The issue is not whether I can find the information; of course I can find information. And if you want to know
where I find information, you'll find that in my writings as well.
You ask me one challenging question, which I have extracted from the rest of your comments about views and debates and whatnot.
Why do you get so shook up about discussion on this forum?
Some things are more revolting than others. The slanderous claims for fraud and racism, when applied without care for the truth of events, represent the very worst of creationist rhetoric. I am shook up on these issues because I am revolted and angry at the misuse of the serious social issues of racism and scientific fraud for the sake of demonising evolutionary biology. It lowers debate to the gutter; and it debases the people who promulgate it.
You are, I suspect, to a large extent the victim of this tactic. I'd guess that you are young and naive; but sincere in thinking that you are on the side of the angels.
If you pursue this in a more responsible manner, showing that you recognize that fraud and racism are very serious accusations that need to be substantiated with care and clarity and substance, you'll find me less "shook up". And if you focus on straightforward matters of biology or geology or science, then again you'll find me much less contemptuous.
There are valid instances of fraud, and of racism. For example, Osborn was arguably racist in his views of evolution, as was Haeckel. (That might be a topic for another thread.) It is reasonably common for creationists to link this racism to Darwinism; the truth is the racist theory for both Osborn and Haeckel was associated with non-Darwinist evolutionary ideas; alternatives that Darwin rejected. In time, Darwin's views prevailed; and
replaced the racist pseudo-biology; though this took some time. In the early twentieth century, non-Darwinist models were used by many scientists in support of racism. As a further point of interest, Osborn (but not Haeckel) was a devout Christian.
The Piltdown man affair is a valid example of fraud.
You said fraud.
Yes, that is my opinion, and if Osborn would have been in my employ at the time, I would have terminated him for gross bias and gross errors in procedure. He could have sued me, I would have counter-sued and the case would have gone to court. My guess is that Osborn would NOT have taken the stand in his own defense because the opposing attorney would have destroyed him. But that's my opinion. Either way, the case would have gone to the jury. The decision? Up to the jury, of course. Cool off a little, and keep discussing if you're still interested.
Why would you sack him for bias and errors in procedure, if he was guilty of the far more serious charge of fraud? Can it be that you
still don't recognize this rather significant distinction?
As a minor aside, I think you are wrong about Osborn not taking the stand. Osborn was very articulate and had a giant ego. It is typical of the man that he so relished tackling Bryan. And if you went to court with the kind of tissue thin unsubstantiated innuendo we have seen in this thread, he'd have your head on a platter. The question is, would you notice? Or would you, as you are doing at present, just continue to run around with your head chopped off while shouting "victory is mine"?
Cheers -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2
