My request to Schaffner

@glipsnort , we take a trust-based approach to public engagement at Peaceful Science. This contrasts with a knowledge-deficit based approach.

In my assessment, this really is the best article on this topic published at BioLogos. However, I do have some significant concerns with it. These issues are substantial enough that, at least to my audience, I cannot recommend it as an accurate account of where the scientific evidence stands on this topic. I respect you as a scientist, and mean no disrespect.

Perhaps in time I will explain more, but you have all the information you need to work it out on your own. I do not want to be a public back and forth with you about this. At least not right now.

Except on this one critical point.

The same day your article was published, this happened. The same organization you published your article seems to be claiming that 18,000,000 = 500,000. This claim is attached to both your name and mine.

My name is attached to this. So, I’ve explained how I am involved, and what I think of this.

Your name is attached to this too. How were you involved and what do you think about this?

We take a trust-based approach to public engagement. As the AAAS puts it, “The messenger matters.” In the case of your article at BioLogos, both you and BioLogos are the messenger.

Even if my other concerns are not valid when we get to them, it may not matter in the end.

Trust matters more, and we gain trust by transparency on critical matters like this. I look forward to hearing your response.

1 Like

@glipsnort gave his opinion on this in the other thread. I appreciate him doing so.

Moved this off the main thread cause its resolved.

1 Like