Your use of the word “secret” is disingenuous. Not every scientific coference invites all scientists, nor the general public. Ideas in these events are discussed tentatively, as a matter of mutual information. Whether you like it or not, this is, in fact, how an awful lot of science is done. Trying to think of the last time I saw a public conference hosted by the Craig Venter stable of scientists, and would hardly expect they’d hold only open conferences. In their case, they’re trying to develop products, not just advance an ideological perspective. There can be all kinds of reasons not to invite every child in the class to your children’s birthday parties, no?
1 Like
Of course not all scientific conference invites (or allows) the press or general public to its meetings. But all scientific conference that I know of do not asks for confidentially agreements to not to discuss and not to publish what you heard at the meeting. I had this problem during the tech bubble of 2001. Fiber Optic Technology was so financially hot that CNBC wanted to broadcast from the floor of the IEEE Optical Fiber Conference. We decided to let them broadcast from the floor of the exhibit hall but not in the rooms where the latest technical breakthroughs were being reported (all peer reviewed and rated as the best technical breakthroughs).
1 Like
That is factually not true. Gordon conferences historically have had just this rule.
Ok, I stand corrected.
Why does Gordon conference do this? Protection of presenters ideas, technology, or patent rights?
2 Likes
They want leading scientists to present their best work in progress, before publication. Has a long traditional of delivering on this vision.
Yes, very good reason. In my industry, “hero” scientific results (like the maximum number of bits you can stuff into a fiber) were published to make the company look advanced and forward looking, but technological advances that could make a real product or system more profitable were usually held back from presentation and publication. The scientists could present/publish but the engineers couldn’t. So I had a hat with multiple brims, one day I wore a scientist hat and the next I wore an engineers hat.
2 Likes
Like Ann Gauger, Steve Meyer, Rick Sternberg, Bill Dembski, and several other ID theorists, I attended this meeting (“Wistar II,” held in Boston). By agreement among all the participants before the meeting, the presentations and discussions were to be strictly off-the-record. Everyone held to this agreement – except Dan Brooks, whose strongly skewed reporting has therefore colored the public perception of what happened in the two days of presentations and discussions.
Ann has suffered the most in the wake of Brooks’s misrepresentations. Ironically, although other presenters on the “evolution” side of the discussion were even more opposed to ID than Dan, as evidenced by their critical comments during the meeting, they kept to their pre-meeting agreement about confidentiality. Brooks claimed for himself the right to describe what happened, however, and now, over 10 years later, Ann is still trying to correct the record.
This meeting taught me a bitter lesson: a scientific minority cannot expect even-handed treatment (especially when, almost by definition, they lack the strength to enforce academic standards, such as have applied at the Gordon Conferences for decades). Dan Brooks did the ID crew a nasty. If ever I see him again at a professional meeting, I’m going to ask him why.
6 Likes
So, Patrick, you’ve successfully counterargued your own disingenuity. Good work!
1 Like
Thank you, I am a Master at it.
3 Likes
A master among other masters… don’t take it as a failure, but as the scientific process at work.
3 Likes
Yes, I will work until I reach my highest level of incompetency.
3 Likes
Ah, the Peter Principle. You’ve dated yourself; oops --now, so have I. Trouble is, you look much better in your “photoshopped” sunglasses than I do with my avatar’s big red nose. The ears are about right; another dubious correspondence, but I do hope it helps me be a better listener.
Sorry to hear about that abuse of privilege, @pnelson .
2 Likes
@pnelson thank you for your comments here, and participation. This has been a bruising thread from some, and I appreciate you helping to tie off some loose ends.
Ann Did Not Lie
I want to reiterate some things here, and then I am putting a timer to close this thread. We can reopen it if and when you or @Agauger wants to try again.
-
First of all, I want to agree that @Agauger suffered a great deal from the fallout of that whole meeting. I entirely believe you both.
-
Looking closely at both Brook’s article, the wikipedia article, and Ann’s article, none of those three artifacts appear to accuse her of lying, which is a good thing.
-
The account of the presentation by Brooks, also, seems to be evidence of her honesty. The only reason there is any evidence to attack her is because she was honest about her data. Perhaps she misinterpreted it, but even in that case it appears to be an honest error.
-
Clearly some people (both on the internet and in person) have accused Ann of lying here, but it appears that they are in the wrong. I can see entirely why this would shake @Agauger so much too. I have real disagreements with her, but I have seen her to be honest. Where she is wrong (in my view), I think she is honestly wrong.
-
Adding insult to injury the stock photo controversy is just hurtful ad hominem. That is irrelevant libel, because she does actually do experiments for goodness sakes. Truth is not served by this at all, and it is hurtful. Substantive critiques is where things should have remained.
The next time she is accused of lying here, I hope you point people to this thread. Ann has been unfairly targeted for being dishonest when she was not. I’m genuinely sad that this has happened to her. I hope this thread can help set the record straight.
What Was Going on with Dan Brooks?
I’ve been thinking about this, and might be able to make some sense of this, in a way that is consistent with your account that…
I’m going to make some reasonable state of mind observations, that could have been what happened with him.
It appears that Brooks did not realize till he got the conference that this was not a Gordon Conference. This does not mean that you misrepresented the conference, but it appears there was a miscommunication somehow at some point. Given that background misunderstanding, he might have not mentally registered the agreement not to share off-the-record, because that is just a background fact of Gordon Conferences. When he realized it was not a Gordon Conference, it seems the expectation of pre-agreement to off-the-record was swept away by him, because he probably had not registered the pre-agreement. Then, when he got the post-conference reminder to be off-the-record, he might have thought this was an attempt at damage control. For that reason, he might have felt the need to break confidentiality (thinking he had never agreed to it in the first place). Along those lines, he might have been told that it was off the record, and never agreed to it.
Alternatively, he might have not understood Wistar II was an ID event, and had he known, he would not have agreed to the off-the-record agreement. Honestly, I’m not entirely sure how that could be justified in this case. Gordon Conferences have a long tradition of this, for a specific reason. This was 2006, right? Immediately after the Dover Trial? I don’t understand what the justification could be for keep that off the record. I’m not saying it is right that he would break the agreement, but it does raise question about why the rules were this way.
Why was this whole conference off-the-record in the first place? This is not unheard of in science, but it is highly unusual. What was the reasoning you had for that? I’m not judging here. I’m honestly unclear why this would even be attempted in the wake of the Dover Trial and Kansas Hearings in 2005. Whether it is right or wrong, what was the reasoning?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 8 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.