As you can see, the word “retraction” is not used. And that is significant, because many journals have formally retracted articles in the past. The avoidance of the word “retraction” must have been a conscious decision.
I would like to know how you know that Sternberg is lying. You know the man personally, and know him to be in the habit of lying? Or you have evidence that any of the statements on his website is false? Which statements? Where is your evidence?
Basically, you didn’t like the Meyer paper, and you’re mad at Sternberg for publishing it, so you are reacting irrationally, calling him a liar, etc. If you don’t agree with the paper, just say so. (Though I doubt you’ve even read it, so I don’t see how your disagreement would mean much.) But don’t smear the character of decent people in the process.
Decent people don’t dishonestly sneak anti-science garbage papers through proper scientific peer-review just to push their own personal religious agenda.
Actions speak louder than words. Sternberg knew that there were major problems with the paper which is why he snuck it through peer review after he had already put in his resignation at the journal. Sternberg abused his position, and he knew it.
The fact Sternberg snuck a garbage paper through without proper scientific review is well documented public knowledge. Your lame attempts to rewrite history and defend the scurrilous action is laughable. Not only are you neither scientist nor scholar, it’s obvious you have some connection to the DI or you wouldn’t be defending their duplicity so vigorously.
You’ve just told me that you would be above prejudice in a tenure situation, and yet here you show the most appalling prejudice. Your “information” about the Sternberg case is entirely based on the polemics of his detractors. If you want the facts about the case, read Sternberg’s website, which provides not only his own account but many other documents. There was no “sneaking” the process was standard, it took the normal length of time, Meyer modified his paper in the light of criticisms, etc.
In the case of Gonzalez, you had a leg to stand on; there were at least plausible non-prejudicial reasons to deny Gonzalez tenure. In the case of Sternberg, you have no leg to stand on; you simply choose to believe he is lying, out of dislike for the article he published. Your claim to detachment in these matters is now very much in doubt.
No, it’s a commonly repeated lie. You haven’t a shred of evidence for the claim. But evidence doesn’t matter to you, anyway, since you never provide any evidence for any of your claims.
It is up to the tenure candidate, to persuade scientists in the discipline that he is doing good science. Whether the candidate has been successful at this is part of what the tenure evaluation involves.
You mean your defense of Sternberg’s well documented duplicity is a commonly repeated DI lie. But you have to defend the DI’s nefarious actions at all costs, right?
Obviously correct, Neil. But that is not the issue I was raising. The issue I raised was whether, in evaluating the contents of his research, the committee evaluated him solely on the basis of his peer-reviewed work, or took into account his views expressed in his popular book on ID. For example, if they mentally gave him a score of 85 out of 100 for his peer-reviewed work, did they simply ignore his book (as popular and unworthy of attention), leaving him with an 85, or did they take his book into account, and mentally subtract 7 points out of a 100 to leave him with a 78, because they thought ID was crap science and reflected negatively on the scientific ability or judgment of anyone who supported it? We still don’t know the answer to that, and probably never will, but we do know that one voting member said his views on ID were a factor. (And yes, to the scientific pedants out there, eager to rush in and correct me on the tenure process, I know that assigning grades like the above is not the way it’s done, but was just using the image as a way of illustrating the point.)
You’re showing your ignorance of the facts – again. Sternberg’s action at the journal was not a DI action. The Biological Society of Washington is not the DI, nor is the Smithsonian, where his research office was. Aren’t you embarrassed to keep arguing when you haven’t done a shred of research into the matters you are discussing? I sure would be.
It’s based on facts. He had already put in his resignation at the journal, and he didn’t let any of the other editors know about the paper which is contrary to normal practices. It was pretty obvious what he was doing. It was like a President pardoning a bunch of people on his last day in office when he won’t have to pay any political price for his actions.
I was not at Iowa state, so I have no inside knowledge. My best guess, however, would be that they evaluated him solely on the basis of his peer reviewed work.
Yes, there was controversy about Gonzalez. When there is controversy, the typical reaction is to concentrate on the peer reviewed work, because that’s where there one can be most objective.
So please educate me and explain their relevance in your own understanding.
I think I don’t need to limit my remarks, and I think it’s extremely ungracious of you to order me to limit them.
But even in that confined space, have YOU read ALL of the papers in question, since you have claimed that ALL are relevant to ID?
Remember:
So if you make a wholesale claim that a group of papers is relevant, it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone to expect you to explain the relevance of a small sample–even more reasonable to ask if you’ve really read them yourself!
LOL! So Stephen Meyer, the author of the stinker paper Sternberg dishonestly sneaked into publication isn’t associated with the DI? Your knee-jerk defense of the anti-science chicanery cracks me up.
What’s that got to do with theocracy? Did the evolution amendment mandate Christian belief for all high school science students? Do you know the meaning of the term “theocracy”?
I see. So if you’re an employee of Microsoft, and also on the board of the Kiwanis Club, and you are found guilty of embezzling Microsoft funds, that reflects badly on the Kiwanis Club? That’s a conclusion you’d have to support, if you say that private actions taken by Sternberg in his capacity as editor of the BSW journal count negatively against the DI, merely because he happens to be also a Fellow of the DI.
Unless, of course, you can prove that the DI “put Sternberg up to” violating standards of peer review – then your link would be warranted. Otherwise, it’s unwarranted.
Another non sequitur on your part. The allegation of misbehavior is against the editor, not the author. So the author’s association with the DI is not relevant – unless you are going to claim that Sternberg and Meyer and the DI plotted the whole thing in advance. But if that’s your claim, you need evidence.
I haven’t read all of them, but I’ve read a large number of them, and where I haven’t read them, I’ve read other papers by the same authors with similar titles and similar themes. I also converse regularly with the ID folks, and we often talk about their publications.
Tim Horton, on the other hand, appears to have read none of them. But he knows what’s in them, and he knows they aren’t relevant to ID. Neat trick, that.
So you admit you’re a flaming hypocrite for chastising others who have only read some of the papers. No wonder you can’t describe in your own words how they are all “relevant” to ID. You can’t even say how any of them are “relevant” to ID.
LOL! Why then did Meyer submit the paper to BSW, a completely off topic journal, if he didn’t know Sternberg would help him sneak it through? Your excuses get more fanciful by the post.
Why do you think the Meyer’s paper was a breakthrough? As I already said, it was by no means the first paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that explicitly argues for intelligent design. I don’t know about “many more” peer-reviewed works since Meyer, we’re really talking a few dozen (according to the DI’s definition of papers that “support ID”). It’s not exactly an impressive publication record, in my opinion.
The sheer ENDURANCE of everyone in this thread is truly a sight to be hold.
Is there any progress of value happening at this point? If no one can convince me there is, very quickly, the @moderators will consider closing this thread for good. Perhaps that will be warmly welcomed a as a way to put everyone out if their misery.
Your knee-jerk defense of the anti-science chicanery cracks me up.