James Tour accuses origin of life researchers of lying

[davecarlson]

@colewd

Lying implies intent and there is no way James knows that someone is lying or made an honest error from a single paper. You have a relationship with him so I think it would be good if you could let him know this is an error and turning people off.

Edit: nevermind, I misunderstood the orginal comment.

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@evograd

For the non-scientists in the forum I feel like I should point out that comparing the number of citations that researchers in different fields have isn’t particularly meaningful. Different fields of study are different in size, in terms of the numbers of scientists working in them, the number of papers they publish, and the level of overlap that would justify citations.

Yeah. I’ve got more citations than Szostak. Anyone who thinks I’m as accomplished a scientist is in serious need of a clue.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@glipsnort

Yeah. I’ve got more citations than Szostak. Anyone who thinks I’m as accomplished a scientist is in serious need of a clue.

@Edgar_Tamarian is printing and framing your Nobel Prize Certificate. Congratulations!

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@evograd

It’s the same with chemistry/nanotechnology versus origins of life research: the most highly-cited of the latter rarely creep over 10,000 citations, while the former often have hundreds of thousands. Going by citation counts, Jack Szostak is at the absolute pinnacle of his chosen field, while Tour isn’t (in his field or in Szostak’s field). Obviously Tour is accomplished, but not as highly as Szostak.

Both guys are very smart and have a seat at the table. I agree that comparing papers is not a valid way to measure competence. All that being said both are capable of spotting errors in each others work.

The issue was Tour accusing Szostak of lying. This was over the top and something he should avoid.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

All that being said both are capable of spotting errors in each others work.

How would you know their respective capabilities?

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Lying implies intent and there is no way James knows that someone is lying or made an honest error from a single paper.

There was no possible error in Szostak’s work that was identified by Tour. That is not the issue here.

Tour claimed that Szostak, in an article from “the primary literature” , had identified as sugars compounds that were not sugars, and had done so deliberately to mislead readers. (“He’s lying to YOU!”)

The article he cited was NOT part of the “primary literature”, and there is no way a scientist of Tour’s stature could not know this.

That actual article from the primary literature clearly identifies that sugars were produced by the process described in Szostak’s popular science article. I found this in a matter of seconds thru Google. Again, there is no way Tour could not be aware of this.

But Tour’s audience of primarily creationists would NOT know any of this and, dazzled by Tour’s credentials, would take him at his word.

The only reasonable conclusion is that Tour knowingly and deliberately lied to this audience. I would say this to his face if I have the opportunity. I wonder if Tour was repeat his accusations to Szostak’s face.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@colewd

The issue was Tour accusing Szostak of lying. This was over the top and something he should avoid.

Credit where credit is due. Thank you @colewd.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Faizal_Ali

Lying implies intent and there is no way James knows that someone is lying or made an honest error from a single paper.

There was no possible error in Szostak’s work that was identified by Tour. That is not the issue here.

@Faizal_Ali did you miss that he agrees with you?

[Faizal_Ali]

He doesn’t agree, if we take what he has written at face value.

He is saying that Tour has identified some real problems in Szostak’s research, but it’s not fair for Tour to call Szostak a liar because these alleged errors could have been unintentional mistakes on Szostak’s part.

That is not what I am saying, nor is it an accurate description of the situation.

Szostak did not make the erroneous claims that Tour attributes to him and, in my opinion, Tour is knowingly and deliberately making false claims regarding Szostak’s research.

If @colewd agrees with that, he can clarify. But that is not what he wrote.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

Szostak did not make the erroneous claims that Tour attributes to him and, in my opinion, Tour is knowingly and deliberately making false claims regarding Szostak’s research.

I don’t know if he did or not. I think you are doing the same thing as Tour with this comment. It could all be a miscommunication as far as I am concerned.

Constructive argument is fine calling people liars is impolite and unnecessary in my opinion. You have no idea what his intent is you are only speculating as Tour is about Szostak’s intent.

[Faizal_Ali]

Thanks for confirming that you were NOT agreeing with me, and that you do not understand the true situation here. It seems that was not clear to everyone.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

It could all be a miscommunication as far as I am concerned.

It cannot be a “miscommunication”, because there is no reason to believe there has been any communication at all between the two of them.

James Tour, who is often claimed to be one of the world’s 50 top scientists, is claiming in that speech that a simplified, popular science article is part of the primary literature. What are the odds that one of the world’s top scientists would not be able to tell the difference?

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

You have no idea what his intent is you are only speculating as Tour is about Szostak’s intent.

What room is there for speculation about “Szostak’s intent”? What are the possibilities, as you see it? As far as I can tell, he wrote an accurate but short and simplified article meant for the non-expert public summarizing some of the current thoughts on OOL. What else could he have intended?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

What room is there for speculation about “Szostak’s intent”?

I have no interest on speculating on his intent or Tours.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@colewd

I have no interest on speculating on his intent or Tours.

It’s a little late for that, since you already did.

[Faizal_Ali]

I’ve sent Jack Szostak an email informing him of this slander.

[Faizal_Ali]

Prof. Szostak has replied to my email. I also sent one to Tour. No response from him as yet.

[Faizal_Ali]

Well, got a response from Tour, and what a response. He is not backing down and insists that Szostak should retract his pop-sci article. And then he sent emails to the Dean of Medicine and HR dept of my university, accusing me of extortion.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Faizal_Ali

And then he sent emails to the Dean of Medicine and HR dept of my university, accusing me of extortion.

What a major league d*ck. I didn’t think it possible for my opinion of Tour to sink any lower but the DI’s latest clown managed to find a way.

[Timothy_Horton]

Dr. Gary Hurd (well known in many C/E circles) has written a nice detailed smackdown of Tour’s misrepresentations and outright lies about Szostak . It’s posted on Dr. GH’s blog Stones and Bones.

James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life

I hope Dr. GH doesn’t mind me sharing this.