You two, hooberus and Forscher, are really amusing stereotypes of the Fundamentalists who cause such trouble for reasonable Christians. You ignore everything you can't deal with, which includes the most telling arguments against your claims. Even when pointed questions are emphasized, you ignore them. That's dishonest, and exactly what I've come to expect from such people over the years. In that, you're much like the typical JW apologists who cherry pick what they'll respond to, and ignore most of the arguments they're confronted with.
Now to business.
As I've pointed out, and you've ignored, Richard Sternberg seems not to have violated "the letter of the law" as regards Smithsonian Institution rules and the written guidelines of the Proceedings journal. If he had, he would almost certainly have been fired. But he most certainly violated the unwritten rules of ethics that all scientists are expected to observe. In particular, he violated the common sense ethical rule for journal editors that if an editor wants to publish an article he knows will be extremely controversial and is liable to embarass most everyone else on the journal's staff, he should get a buy-in from the editorial board or governing council as a whole. It's irrelevant whether the journal has written rules about this -- it's a common sense ethical practice. All scientists are expected to have this common sense after having gone through a Ph.D. program. People who don't have this common sense are by definition bad scientists and should not be allowed to practice science in a reputable institution.
The fact is that the governing council of the Proceedings journal issued an official statement that Sternberg violated their confidence by making an end run around the unwritten rules he was well aware of. Sternberg knew in advance that publishing the ID article would be highly controversial. That's why he was careful to pick exactly the right people to discuss his plans with. It's extremely significant that none of the parties involved -- neither Sternberg's supposed peer-reviewers, nor the person on the Proceedings council who he claims he discussed it with (who is almost certainly another IDer, like Sternberg) -- have come forward to verify Sternberg's claims. So all we have is Sternberg's word. And of course, no one in the regular science community trusts him anymore, given his track record.
Obviously you two refuse to admit that you understand any of this, so let me once again pose the question from Eugenie Scott:
"If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?"
Your refusal to give a proper answer will prove that you're thoroughly dishonest.
What you two are really doing is playing Pharisee, just like Sternberg. You're ignoring the spirit of an honest and open science community, and substituting a Pharisaic "rule of law", where you think that if there isn't a specific rule or law to cover a situation, anything goes. Well I've got news for you: Neither science nor business works that way. Anyone who is a real player in those fields understands that there's a lot more to playing than following a written set of rules.
Now for some specific responses to your comments.
Hooberus said:
: The information I presented was not "misleading" and was backed up a govenment investigation letter.
The information was incomplete and therefore misleading. You failed to present any comments at all from anyone who took Sternberg to task. Therefore your information was as biased as anything from the Watchtower Society.
I had said:
:: In a nutshell, what happened was that Dr. Sternberg, a Christian creationist, misused his position as editor of the minor technical journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to bypass the normal editorial reviewing process to get published an article by the Intelligent Design creationist Dr. Stephen Meyer.
You replied with a quotation from Sternberg:
: In the case of the Meyer paper I followed all the standard procedures for publication in the Proceedings. . .
This is precisely the sort of Pharisaic, Watchtowerish response I've come to expect from Fundies.
I had said:
:: If the normal review process were followed, the article never would have been published, partly for obvious reasons and partly because its content was quite out of character with the articles on taxonomy that the journal normally handles.
: The normal review process was followed.
So Sternberg claims, but refuses to prove. But when something as obviously controversial as publishing a pro-ID paper in a normal science journal is contemplated, the "normal review process" -- by scientific convention and simple common sense -- must include getting the approval of the entire editorial board. Sternberg followed the normal process for the type of article normally published in Proceedings -- articles on taxonomy and such. Common sense says that anything out of the ordinary should be given extraordinary treatment.
: The following explains this (and answers many objections such as the above):
Already dealt with in previous posts. Let's continue:
:: Furthermore, it appears likely that Sternberg chose some of his creationist buddies who hold science positions at several Christian colleges to do the required peer review.
: The reviewers held qualified degrees in science.
What's your proof? All we have is Sternberg's word. And since he's violated a trust, why should anyone trust anything he says?
I'll again quote Weitzel writing in the Skeptic article I quoted:
Dr. Sternberg further asserts that "Meyer's paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions." Since it is not unusual for reviewers to remain anonymous, it is entirely possible that Sternberg sent the article to the qualified scientists of his Baraminology Study Group at Bob Jones University, The Master's College, and Bryan College, all of which are well-known Christian institutions that require their faculty to sign a statement of belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.
Do you disagree with this latter assessment, hooberus? If so, can you explain why any normal scientist would agree to review a pro-ID article and recommend its publishing in an obscure taxonomy journal?
Furthermore, whoever these reviewers were, they're demonstrably incompetent. As Weitzel wrote (see my earlier post for more context):
In a summary, the authors of "Meyer's Hopeless Monster" conclude that Meyer has merely constructed "a rhetorical edifice out of omissions of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations."
Any scientist who fails to see such blatant bad argumentation in a scientific paper is certainly incompetent. And of course, Sternberg is shown to be equally incompetent.
:: Naturally, the scientists at the Smithsonian Institution who were hoodwinked and embarassed by Sternberg's unethical conduct took action against him.
: The unethical conduct was against Sternberg, not by him.
You didn't deal with the various questions I've raised about this. It's perfectly normal for government managers who are forced to deal with an unethical employee who hasn't violated specific written laws to use whatever legal means they can to force the employee out. They have little choice, given the ridiculously restrictive government rules about firing employees. This is common knowledge. Furthermore, the actions taken by Sternberg's employers were not truly unethical -- otherwise they would have been fired. (See how two can play the game?)
:: He knew what he was doing when he chose his creationist buddies to do the peer-review,
: Since we don't know his thoughts, (nor the identity of the reviewers) statements such as the above are unsubstantiated.
The scientists who were hoodwinked are not dummies. Who do you think you're dealing with? A typical bunch of dumb Fundies like the JWs?
:: He knew quite well that the article wouldn't pass muster if non-creationists reviewed it, and that it was altogether inappropriate for that journal. So Sternberg certainly violated normal science ethics, and was guilty of professional misconduct.
: There violation of "normal science ethics" and "professional misconduct" was not perpetuated by him, but rather against him.
Once again you sidestep the point. Yep, hooberus, you're dishonest.
:: On his website, Sternberg complains that his reputation was smeared by false allegations, but gives little supporting evidence.
: There is the letter from the U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL supporting several of his assertions.
Which contains precious little by way of actual smears. He was called a young-earth creationist by certain people, but he never actually denies being one, and his associations prove that he's an ID creationist. Some people naturally called his credentials into question, but another associate circulated his curriculum vitae to prove he really had degrees. And so it goes. Piddly stuff, really.
But what Sternberg never addresses is the most important question of all -- why he didn't have the courtesy, or common sense, to run such a controversial article by the entire Proceedings council, knowing the extent of embarassment it would cause his employers. And it's obvious why he didn't.
:: Sure, and that agency happens to be the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, whose principle legal adviser and the man who headed the investigation of Sternberg's charges, happens to be one James McVay, a political appointee of the Bush administration. Naturally, one expects that McVay subscribes to the same right-wing creationist agenda that George W. Bush and so many other of his political appointees do, so it's hardly to be expected that McVay would be other than harsh on Sternberg's critics. In other words, he's playing out a political agenda.
: What direct evidence do you have that McVay subscribes to a "right-wing creationist agenda"?
None, or I would have posted it. But until a couple of weeks ago, I had no direct evidence that George W. Bush was an IDer, although I certainly suspected it. Keep in mind that most of Bush's political appointees are right wingers -- otherwise they wouldn't have been appointed. Most of them claim to be Christians and a great many of them are Fundamentalists, some quite extreme, like John Ashcroft. Furthermore, reading McVay's comments to Sternberg gives a strong impression that he's quite biased toward Sternberg, something to be expected of a fellow creationist. Again, who do you think you're dealing with here?
Forscher wrote:
: Since hooberus did a good job of rebutting many of the points raised, there isn't much I can add beyond this.
LOL!
: You contend that it was somehow unethical for Sternberg to have the article in question peer-reviewed and then published.
I said nothing of the kind. I said that it was unethical for him not to run the article by the entire editorial board, knowing that it was highly controversial, inappropriate for the journal, and would most certainly embarass the Proceedings governing council. And of course, the governing council issued a statement saying that.
: As hooberus showed with the appropriate links, Sternberg followed the procedure that was set up. That is hardly unethical.
It was a legalistic, Pharisaical, Watchtowerish endrun around normal science ethics. See my above comments.
: In your first post you contended that one of the reasons the publication was unethical was that people you consider ignorant might read it and think that somehow had some legitimacy.
I said nothing remotely like that in my first post. In my second post I said something that someone might interpret that way:
:: Your position ignores political reality. ID is in no sense science -- it is religion. IDers have a political strategy they call "The Wedge" which is designed to take advantage of the ignorance of the majority of Americans about most science issues and to play on their natural sense of fairness: "Why not let people examine all sides of the evolution/creation issue?" Well of course, good science is not done by majority vote, but by hard work in testing theories and making observations. IDers want to circumvent this process by ultimately legislating that the Christian brand of creationism (as opposed to, say, the Hare Krishna brand) be taught in public schools as if it had undergone the rigorous testing that the theory of evolution has for a century and a half. The problem for science is that American religion has enough political clout to do exactly that.
: Since the magazine in question is an obscure scientific publication aimed at fellow scientists that the public in general doesn't have ready access to, I can only assume that you think trained scientists are incapable of examining the material critically and coming to the proper conclusions. Apparently the scientists at the Smithsonian and the think-tank invovled agree with you!
You certainly have a way of thoroughly mistunderstanding what's going on. The Skeptic article I quoted was extremely clear about the real reasons that IDers want to get an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, why for some 15 years it's been their Holy Grail. Let me requote some important points:
Like the medieval prince who forfeited his kingdom in a quest for the Holy Grail, Intelligent Design creationists (IDers) have embarked on the equally quixotic quest to place a peer-reviewed article in a bona fide scientific journal. This 21st-century Grail is a linchpin in the intelligent design movement's strategy for winning their case in both the court of law and the court of public opinon.
. . .
Their Grail, however plastic, was secured the moment the ink dried on the Proceeding's pages. Thereafter they can claim that intelligent design has passed the litmus test of a peer-reviewed journal. They will just leave out a few details, such as the particular circumstances of the essay's publication or its official denunciation by the BSW.
Why do you think these guys conspired to get Meyer's article published in such an obscure journal? It certainly wasn't to disseminate the information. Indeed, the Discovery Institute and its leading authors already sell books containing the same stuff by the truckload. It was as Weitzel says: to be able to "claim that intelligent design has passed the litmus test of a peer-reviewed journal." And of course, Sternberg's fellows at the Smithsonian and the Proceedings journal don't like to be used in such an unethical manner.
: Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.
Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality that I've explained several times now: to get a merely unethical government employee fired is virtually impossible, so other means are used. This is standard practice in government. Anyone who doesn't know how this works is naive.
And yes, Sternberg's managers were fully justified in making working conditions difficult for him so that he'd voluntarily leave.
: That you can so blithely defend such a smear campain and even quote it's propaganda (that means lies, friend) is nothing short of amazing.
That you can so blithely misunderstand and ignore so much is, well, typical.
AlanF
