Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 12:54 PM
412 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,897 Year: 13,503/21,208 Month: 2,985/3,605 Week: 327/933 Day: 69/154 Hour: 11/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2441 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 121 of 207 (143104)
09-18-2004 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
08-26-2004 12:18 AM


" to Gishlick et al. in due course" (of course!) why didnt i...
Quote from link
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/400_more_on_meyer_9_3_2004.asp
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2004 12:18 AM RAZD has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 207 (143123)
09-18-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Silent H
09-18-2004 1:46 PM


What the hell is scratch?

I presume he meant the pre-biotic Earth.

There never was a scratch.

At some point, if you trace the history of organisms back, there comes a point when the study of those ancestors becomes chemistry and not biology. I presume that's what he meant.

Maybe it's not so much of a point, exactly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Silent H, posted 09-18-2004 1:46 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 09-18-2004 5:48 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 123 of 207 (143129)
09-18-2004 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
09-18-2004 5:30 PM


there comes a point when the study of those ancestors becomes chemistry and not biology. I presume that's what he meant... Maybe it's not so much of a point, exactly.

Yeah, I knew what he was referring to, but it's still the same kind of misrepresentation as "dog births chicken".

The chemistry would not have been some random floating chemicals deal, which instantly formed an organism in one step.

It would be chemicals becoming more complex through reactions in specific environments to build precursors which could then make that last step. Its hard to say where life actually begins/ends with some things we have now and that would mimic what went on back then.

Something kind of lifelike, but not, interacting with other semilifelike entities to eventually form something we'd finally say (and who knows if it flitted back and forth in stages for a while) "okay this counts as life".

Scratch sounds instantaneous and from basic ingredients.

I defy that characterization.

This message has been edited by holmes, 09-18-2004 04:49 PM


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 122 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2004 5:30 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Nic Tamzek
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 207 (144782)
09-25-2004 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ID man
09-18-2004 11:16 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
Wow, this thread has really expanded since the last time I checked. Since I'm Nick Matzke (if you hadn't guessed), I might as well answer ID man's question:

ID Man wrote:

quote:
Is talk design a peer-reviewed journal? Is N.J. Matzke a biologist?
What detail is offered on how the bac flag arose?

Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:A Response to Nicholas Matzke

The double-standards are obvious. Reality shows they exist.


In order:

quote:
Is talk design a peer-reviewed journal?

Nope. It's a website put together by a combination of highly interested amateurs and professionals. If you want, you can ignore it. But the people who put together the website do know more about the relevant topics than pretty much anyone else. But no one there argues that their arguments should be accepted on their authority, only because they make sense and take into account the actual peer-reviewed literature on technical topics.

quote:
Is N.J. Matzke a biologist?

Depends what you mean. I have a double B.S. in biology and chemistry from Valparaiso University. I've spent several years doing ecology field work. Since you seem interested, I graduated summa cum laude. This gives me two more relevant degrees than Dembski (the author of "Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:A Response to Nicholas Matzke", which you cite) has when it comes to things like biology.

I also have an M.A. in geography, with an interest in biogeography and statistical modelling of spatial processes, both of which are relevant in various ways to evolution. (As random examples, the process of dispersal is crucial to understanding anything about how the bacterial flagellum arose, and punctuated equilibrium is actually derived from the biogeographic phenomenon of allopatric speciation)

But, I will freely admit that I'm still essentially just at the grad-student level, since I have no biology Ph.D. Disregard me if you like on that score (to be consistent, you'd have to cross out pretty much everyone in the ID movement except maybe Behe). But the articles I cite, for example in the flagellum article, won't go away, no matter what you think of little ol' me.

(In the article, I took pains to look up essentially all of the relevant literature on the origin of the flagellum. Since 2003 I've discovered some stuff I missed, and some new stuff has been published; regardless, the 2003 article proved that there was way more out there than even the ID critics realized.)

quote:
Biology in the Subjunctive Mood:A Response to Nicholas Matzke

Heh. First, Dembski conceded that my science was accurate (even though there are a few weaknesses in my article, he didn't catch them). Second, page-counting, rambling about my qualifications, who told him about the article, whether or not I'm a mathematical child genius, and the like, are just off-topic dissembling.

Third, Dembski's Big Counterpoint is this:

quote:
As for Matzke's claim that his model is step-by-step, that's trivially true -- after all, he defined the model as a series of steps. But are those steps reasonably small so that they constitute what Darwin called "successive, slight modifications." My sense is no -- getting from a type III secretion system to a bacterial flagellum in six steps seems on its face to require at least one big leap somewhere. But intuitions aside, given that Matzke's model is not detailed, there's no way to decide whether the steps are small enough to be accommodated by the Darwinian mechanism.

Intuition? Intuition? He couldn't actually find a big gap in my scenario, so he relies on intuition to tell him there is one?

As for detail, I was quite up front about what the right standard for detail was: breaking down the origin of the flagellum into a linear series of protein-protein-binding-site-evolution events. The evolution of a binding site is itself a rather trival "microevolutionary" event that can be approached gradually -- see for example here, here and here for documentation -- so treating these as the "steps" for the unit of analysis is well justified. Dembski of course grapples with none of this.

quote:

The double-standards are obvious. Reality shows they exist.

Yep, and you've got them all, ID man...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ID man, posted 09-18-2004 11:16 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Brad McFall, posted 09-27-2004 9:40 AM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded
 Message 126 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 11:59 AM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded
 Message 131 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:13 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2441 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 125 of 207 (144991)
09-27-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nic Tamzek
09-25-2004 11:22 PM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
Kantian "intuition" nor mathmatical Browerintuitionistics? ARE NOT taught in biology classes as far as I know. GO figure! It seemed to me that Mayr's attempts to distance teleology BY teleomatics was the first explict attempt to DISCONTINUE via discipline IN ARISTOTLE's "distributive" justice of/or pedagogy (for any form biologically (and Mayr KNEW these better than many))but it really does not seem in Dawkins' "Chaplin" but only in Gould's resistence (again an "in"sistence) to *probablistic* materialism that such difference of final and proximate causes makes sense of the hoped for data.

The issue of IC has to do MORE with Wolfram's cease and desist order to overselling of Natural Selection than it does with the what economic order will control the TEACHING of evolutionary theory. Knowledge of biogeography is one thing but faliure to cross its landbridge an/other. Salthe ENTIFIED hierarchy thought and Gould continued this line but process views that ARE PROGRAMMABLE in any steps show that where this WAS metaphysical it really ontologically only is the money used to AFFORD the Darwinian Individual.

There seems to be a hopless link of elitism (post Aggaissiz Harvard biology etc) and various psychologies of statistical ratio IQs that indeed there IS NOW reason to question the ubiquity to teleomatics of the individual Darwinistically but this does not mean that Dawkins is correct either. I still refer back to Einstein's clock not being a rod. Oh, well...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

    
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 207 (145029)
09-27-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nic Tamzek
09-25-2004 11:22 PM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is talk design a peer-reviewed journal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Nic:
Nope.

Then according to Joe Meert it is invisible to science. That means it doesn't count for much.

Get your article published and someone may take notice.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 10:59 AM

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:00 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 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:03 PM ID man has responded
 Message 128 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:06 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 207 (145031)
09-27-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ID man
09-27-2004 11:59 AM


Get your article published and someone may take notice.

Well, if he gets it published the way you ID guys have to get your stuff published, the notice he attracts is going to be of the legal variety.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 11:59 AM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:09 PM crashfrog has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 207 (145032)
09-27-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ID man
09-27-2004 11:59 AM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
I don't know if any of this has been posted so here goes:

Welcome to the home page of Dr. Richard M. v. Sternberg

This one supports what I posted about Richard being part of the baraminology group:
Letter from the Baraminology Study Group

Response to questions from The Scientist

From: Richard Sternberg
To: Trevor Stokes
Date: Wednesday - September 1, 2004 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Interest in commentary.

Dear Dr. Stokes,

With regard to your story on the article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, I'm happy to answer a few questions.

First, Dr. Meyer's article was submitted to the PBSW in the normal way and was then passed along to three scientists for review. All three reviewers hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute. 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 but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication. The reviewers disagreed on specific details but all agreed that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate.

Furthermore, while I too disagreed with several important aspects of the paper, I concurred in the view that it was worthy of publication and debate. Since the time of the publication of the paper, several members of the Biological Society of Washington have told me that they found the paper "stimulating" and "informative," that it brings to the fore complex and important issues that most biologists want to avoid.

Second, I'm surprised at some of the outrageous rumors that seem to be swirling around the publication of this paper. In addition to baseless questions about the peer review process, the rumors have labeled me a "creationist." As a matter of fact, I am a structuralist who has given several papers and presentations critiquing creationism. Dr. Meyer has also been accused of being a "creationist," which judging from the paper is a highly inaccurate description of his views. It's fascinating how the "creationist" label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. I have a PhD in evolutionary biology and another PhD in theoretical biology, and have published more than 30 papers in peer-reviewed scientific publications (my vita is available on request). I have always followed the principle that scientists should be open to pursue all scientific questions and not be shackled by convention and authority. The reaction to the paper by some extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community.

Sincerely,

Rick Sternberg


(bold added)


"...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 126 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 11:59 AM ID man has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 207 (145033)
09-27-2004 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:03 PM


Get your article published and someone may take notice.

quote:
crashfrog:
Well, if he gets it published the way you ID guys have to get your stuff published, the notice he attracts is going to be of the legal variety.

Meyer's article was published the same way other scientists get their articles published, via peer-review. If you have any evidence to the contrary please provide it.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:09 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 127 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:11 PM ID man has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 207 (145034)
09-27-2004 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:09 PM


Meyer's article was published the same way other scientists get their articles published, via peer-review.

The journal is a journal of systematics and taxonomy. This is not an article on those subjects.

Clearly, peer-review did not occur. Moreover, from the journal itself:

quote:
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.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-27-2004 11:13 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:09 PM ID man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:16 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 12:19 PM crashfrog has responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 207 (145036)
09-27-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nic Tamzek
09-25-2004 11:22 PM


on double standards
Let's see if Nic cares to answer:

Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented, just as in all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. "An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model.

The premise is false in that ID has presented the positive evidence for its case. The case is in the literature I have posted as well as other essays, articles and books. BTW, we can’t deny what has yet to be shown. IOW if you could show your process was sufficient odds are we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

However we can compare- what is the positive evidence that natural selection acting on random variations or mutations can do what evolutionists assert it can? IOW what is the positive evidence that a bacterial flagellum can arise by nature acting alone? What is the positive evidence for asexual and sexual reproduction arising by nature acting alone? What we will find, as with endo-symbiosis and the alleged origins of eukaryotes, is that what is being looked for has to be assumed in the first place. IOW Dr. Margulis started with the assumption that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then fit her observance to that assumption. The same can be said of the alleged evolution of metazoans. Then these guys have the audacity to mention details. LoL! The theory of evolution is void of details. The ‘why’ in the theory of evolution is what? The theory of evolution can only speculate based on the assumption. How can we falsify the theory of evolution? What is the empirical test to show that euks. evolved from proks.?

“An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model. "The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and Saunders.

The double-standards in the first paragraph alone would give any rational person caution for the contents of the rest of the paper.

OK Nic anytime you are ready. Take your time I understand that discussion boards are not your life.


"...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 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 207 (145038)
09-27-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:11 PM


Meyer's article was published the same way other scientists get their articles published, via peer-review.

quote:
crashfrog:
The journal is a journal of systematics and taxonomy. This is not an article on those subjects.

Clearly, peer-review did not occur.


As usual you don't know what you are talking about:

First, Dr. Meyer's article was submitted to the PBSW in the normal way and was then passed along to three scientists for review. All three reviewers hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute. 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 but all found the paper meritorious, warranting publication. The reviewers disagreed on specific details but all agreed that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate.

The above taken from:
http://www.rsternberg.net/TheScientist.htm

Statement of facts

Editorship

I became managing editor of the Proceedings in December 2001 when the position was offered to me by the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW). At the time I was finishing a post-doctoral fellowship at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History and entering on a new job at GenBank at the National Institutes of Health. In my position at NIH I am assigned to spend 50% of my time working as an curator of the NCBI DNA database and 50% of my time as doing research as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. I worked as managing editor of the Proceedings as an adjunct position to my research at the Smithsonian.

During my tenure as managing editor from December 2001 to August 2004 I was responsible for the publication of 11 issues and one "bulletin" (a monograph published from time to time). I received and processed more than 200 papers as well as the one large monograph.

In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings; after almost two years I was tiring of my editorial responsibilities and eager to have more time for my own research and writing. At that time, however, no new managing editor could be found, and so without withdrawing my letter of resignation I agreed to continue on as managing editor until such time as the Council could find my replacement. That happened in May 2004, when Dr. Richard Banks agreed to replace me after the issue Volume 117-3 and a major "bulletin" that was nearly complete (both are currently in press). So as planned for some time, Dr. Banks has recently taken over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper.

Publication process of the Proceedings in general

The process for publication of papers in the Proceedings has been straightforward. The practice was for the managing editor to receive and initially pass on all submitted papers. Then, depending on the subject matter, the managing editor would pass the paper to an associate editor with expertise in the appropriate field for soliciting peer reviews and then editing the paper as needed to prepare it for publication. The managing editor could also select an ad hoc associate editor for a particular paper if no member of the board of associate editors was suitable. Finally, the managing editor could take direct charge of a paper if that was appropriate. In the case of papers assigned to associate editors, the paper would be returned to the managing editor for any final editing before transmission to the printer for inclusion in the next issue of the Proceedings. An overview of the general procedure was provided in a form letter to all submitting authors.

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.

Finally, critics of the Meyer paper have made the false claim that proper procedures were not followed by quoting out of context a sentence from the inside cover of the Proceedings which reads, "Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors." What the sentence means is that manuscripts are reviewed by some member of the group of associate editors. At no time in the past has the board as a whole (or even more than one associate editor) ever reviewed any paper, nor has that practice and policy changed as a result of the recent controversy.

Publication process for the Meyer paper

The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")

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.

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.

From original receipt to publication the processing, reviewing, revising, and editing of the Meyer paper took about six months. (By contrast, I once helped colleagues at the Museum rush out a paper on a topic upon which they feared that others were about to preempt them in about four weeks from receipt of the paper to publication.) Even after the paper was completely finished, due to other more pressing matters it sat on my desk for more than two weeks before I finally made time to send it to the printer. Thus, any allegations that I somehow rushed the publication process are patently false.

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.

crasgfrog you should read my posts and its links BEFORE responding.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-27-2004 11:18 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 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:11 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:19 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15616
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 133 of 207 (145039)
09-27-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
09-27-2004 12:11 PM


Crash writes:

The journal is a journal of systematics and taxonomy. This is not an article on those subjects.

Clearly, peer-review did not occur.

The first part is true, the second is not. The article *did* receive peer-review.

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 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. 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.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:11 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 12:21 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 136 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:48 PM Percy has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 207 (145040)
09-27-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ID man
09-27-2004 12:16 PM


As usual you don't know what you are talking about:

At any point that you have evidence, please feel free to share it.

The journal in question does not publish papers of this nature. Why would they have made an exception in this case? Malfeasance is the most likely explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 12:16 PM ID man has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 207 (145041)
09-27-2004 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
09-27-2004 12:19 PM


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.

So they weren't exactly "peers", were they? Peer review did not occur, then, in the sense that peer review constitutes a practice designed to fairly judge a paper on its scientific merits, not its ideology. Is the process was perverted, as it probably was, then can it really be said to have occured?

But I recognize the correction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 12:19 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017