Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 6:33 PM
372 online now:
frako, herebedragons, JonF, RAZD (4 members, 368 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,497 Year: 21,103/21,208 Month: 1,536/2,326 Week: 872/345 Day: 110/124 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
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

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 207 (145052)
09-27-2004 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:48 PM


The evidence says you are full of it Percy.

What evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:48 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:56 PM crashfrog 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 ŕ 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

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 207 (145055)
09-27-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:56 PM


Read the links I posted. The evidence is also in one of my recent posts in this thread (check today's postings).

I'm sorry, you misunderstood. I asked for the evidence, not to have the claims repeated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:56 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 140 of 207 (145058)
09-27-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:48 PM


ID man writes:

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.

As I already said in Message 12, Roy McDiarmid, president of the Biological Society of Washington, sent me this email on the 7th of this month.

Attached is a prepared statement that will appear in the next proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. If you need more information let me know.

Sincerely
Roy McDiarmid, President
Biological Society of Washington

Here is the statement that was released publicly later that day:

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings (“The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

The Council of the Biological Society of Washington
7 September 2004

This should satisfy your request for evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:48 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:33 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 141 of 207 (145061)
09-27-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:56 PM


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

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:56 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:37 PM Percy 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3316 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 143 of 207 (146058)
09-30-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:37 PM


Precedent had already been set, no carte blanche required:

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?

Can you show a precedent of dealing with highly controversial and purely theoretical articles? Moreso, that the decision to go ahead with such articles were handled only by the editor and a friend?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:37 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:08 PM Silent H 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 146 of 207 (146114)
09-30-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ID man
09-30-2004 12:37 PM


First an aside: Your quote in this message is fine, but for longer quotes such as in Message 144 please just link to the page and provide shorter excerpts.

ID man writes:

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

The topics Sternberg mentioned are all closely related to taxonomy. If he can't tell the difference between these topics and ID then he isn't qualified or competent to be editor of a taxonomy journal.

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. Naturally in the aftermath both McDiarmid and Sternberg are doing damage control. McDiarmid is trying to recover what he can of the journal's former reputation, and Sternberg is doing the same by trying to cast his actions into a favorable light.

In Message 145 you say:

Percy, How do we know that that Roy wasn't coerced into writing what you posted? Why should he be trusted and not Sternberg?

I don't recall making arguments about who should be trusted and who shouldn't, but anyway, if McDiarmid's statement was coerced then it would mean he didn't agree with it. But why would the president of the BSW disagree with a statement completely consistent with the long established and long-ago stated purpose of the journal? Why would any scientist disagree with the AAAS Statement on ID citing the lack of credible scientific evidence and the lack of testable criteria?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:37 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 2:52 PM Percy has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3316 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 147 of 207 (146122)
09-30-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ID man
09-30-2004 1:08 PM


Keep moving the goalposts. That is all you have.

I realize many people have been accusing you of doing this, but that doesn't mean you get to start using it as if it applies to anyone else.

I was quite clear in making a distinction and NOT moving a goalpost. In essence I am accusing Sternberg of either equivocation or moving the goalpost himself.

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.

His defense was bringing up articles that deviated from pure taxonomy. While that may be true, deviating from pure taxonomy may not be the ONLY prerequisite for deviating from the purpose of the journal. The article clearly deviated in other manners (which is what I was pointing out).

Why should we accept Sternberg's criteria for what deviation would be, when the people in charge say it was a deviation?

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

Yes I mean the other scientist on the commitee. He stated that he knew it could be controversial and so goes to one person? Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you?

And I didn't forget the reviewers. They are irrelevant to the discussion. The question I am addressing is whether it was appropriate for the journal whether it was good science or not.

That involved only sternberg and his one friend.

Which group do you belong to holmes?

I never wrote him a response so I am not in any of them. If I did I would also not be in any of them. Clearly he is discussing the types he had received, not all the kinds there could be.

I agree with the sentiment that ID as well as IDIOT theory will have to be addressed at some point (the fact that IDIOT theory was shot down almost 2 centuries ago not withstanding). The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

That does not alter the valid question of whether it should have been addressed in that particular journal. 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.

Given that the people in charge of the Journal said it wasn't appropriate, kind of makes your arguments moot.

By the way... remember when you earlier agreed with Boyle about ultimate versus sufficient causes in science? How do you square your agreement with Boyle, with Sternberg's statement:

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.

Who do you agree with? Boyle or Sternberg?

I have yet to spot one consistent position in your posts.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 1:08 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 2:56 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 152 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 3:06 PM Silent H has 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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 149 of 207 (146136)
09-30-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Silent H
09-30-2004 2:35 PM


holmes writes:

ID man writes:

Which group do you belong to holmes?

I never wrote him a response so I am not in any of them. If I did I would also not be in any of them. Clearly he is discussing the types he had received, not all the kinds there could be.

I *did* send Sternberg email, inviting him to participate here, and I don't fit into any of those categories, either.

Most notable in Sternberg's taxonomy of the responses (I guess that's what a taxonomist does, taxonomizes!) is the antagonistic and defensive tone. The terms he uses to describe the responses, like "extreme hostility and anger" and "herd instinct", and his use of the term "thought police" elsewhere, are the reactions of someone who clearly already views himself as outside the general scientific community.

--Percy


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 150 by Silent H, posted 09-30-2004 3:01 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3316 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 150 of 207 (146140)
09-30-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Percy
09-30-2004 2:56 PM


The description of himself and baraminology (I think it was at the baraminology site) was equally antagonistic in tone. Or should I say messianic?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 09-30-2004 2:56 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017