Comic Genesis Forums

In a recent thread discussing evolution, I mentioned Sternberg's problems but never really got around to laying them out before the thread was locked. So to avoid locking, here's the subject. Please don't deviate from it. "Are the retaliatory measures against Sternberg appropriate for publishing Meyer's paper assuming that the critique of the paper is correct?"

So, no arguing for or against evolution here, please, just a discussion of the discipline issues involved and whether or not Sternberg's eventually going to walk away from the Smithsonian with a big, fat check in his pocket (from either the institution or his colleagues there or both). My current belief is that he is, though I'm open to argument on the subject.

A related question fit for this thread is what does this sort of retribution do to the willingness of other editors to publish papers that are "out there" but are as good or even better than Meyer's? I think that such papers are likely getting extra scrutiny and it's very likely that editors have either thought to themselves or been told that they don't want to become the next Sternberg while applying said scrutiny.

I read the retaliatory meaures alone and can conclude that they were not appropriate, no matter what it was he allowed to be published.

You simply don't go around spreading rumors like that no matter what it is one has done.

maxgoof wrote:I read the retaliatory meaures alone and can conclude that they were not appropriate, no matter what it was he allowed to be published.

You simply don't go around spreading rumors like that no matter what it is one has done.

So what's the appropriate remedy, sensitivity training? I'm sure the Discovery Institute would love to provide trainers. >B->

I think science has been hijacked by anti-religion bigots who are quick to attack anyone who might actually have proof against evolution. These aren't the atheists who refuse to believe in God and just want to be left alone. These are the people who, for some reason, can't stand anyone believing in God and will use anything to attack it, from evolution to the Crusades long ago. Even if the science is sound, they'll shout down and insult anything that threatens their precious theory.

After all, if evolution is true, and God doesn't exist, they don't have to feel bad about their sex lives, do they?

StrangeWulf13 wrote:I think science has been hijacked by anti-religion bigots who are quick to attack anyone who might actually have proof against evolution. These aren't the atheists who refuse to believe in God and just want to be left alone. These are the people who, for some reason, can't stand anyone believing in God and will use anything to attack it, from evolution to the Crusades long ago. Even if the science is sound, they'll shout down and insult anything that threatens their precious theory.

Hear, hear.

TMLutas wrote:In a recent thread discussing evolution, I mentioned Sternberg's problems but never really got around to laying them out before the thread was locked. So to avoid locking, here's the subject. Please don't deviate from it. "Are the retaliatory measures against Sternberg appropriate for publishing Meyer's paper assuming that the critique of the paper is correct?"

So, no arguing for or against evolution here, please, just a discussion of the discipline issues involved and whether or not Sternberg's eventually going to walk away from the Smithsonian with a big, fat check in his pocket (from either the institution or his colleagues there or both). My current belief is that he is, though I'm open to argument on the subject.

A related question fit for this thread is what does this sort of retribution do to the willingness of other editors to publish papers that are "out there" but are as good or even better than Meyer's? I think that such papers are likely getting extra scrutiny and it's very likely that editors have either thought to themselves or been told that they don't want to become the next Sternberg while applying said scrutiny.

If the scientific community was really concerned about the accuracy of published papers I think they should start here.

Even if the criticisms are valid (and I believe they are not) the only explanation for the viciousness of the attacks is bias against any theory that deviates from the anti-religion orthodoxy. Newton and other scientists from the past would not be welcome today in the contemporary scientific community.

Narnian wrote: If the scientific community was really concerned about the accuracy of published papers I think they should start here.

Even if the criticisms are valid (and I believe they are not) the only explanation for the viciousness of the attacks is bias against any theory that deviates from the anti-religion orthodoxy. Newton and other scientists from the past would not be welcome today in the contemporary scientific community.

No sneaking in evolution v ID please.

You are raising an interesting question of whether the rules are being tilted depending on how far outside the pale an inaccurate paper bends the rules. I guess that you could do a literature research and create a scale for types and degrees of fraud then dig in and rate what the resulting career effects were. No doubt somebody in the social sciences would find it a useful phenomenon to study.

A further question is how dangerous a study of comparative peer review vindictiveness would be to one's own career. And you know, that thought should not occur to me. The idea that 1st world scientists in free societies have to worry about their careers if they study something too sensitive should be so self-evidently false that the speculation should be laughable. I'm not so sure that it is and the more credible the thought, the less influence science will have in larger society.