Thank you. Nuff’ said; I’m good.
There was no theory being discussed. Behe misrepresented the evidence itself. Italics don’t make the false claim true, btw.
2 Likes
By the way, it is almost impossible to find any current information on Abbie Smith (whose formal name is apparently Stacey A. Smith). Even the debate over the work of Mikovits which is referenced on the site Ron found seems impossible to find on the internet. Even if you look up “Judy Mikovits” (whom Smith apparently called by a vulgar name), you can hardly find anything, other than an obvious “hit piece” on Wikipedia, which is obviously written by Mikovits-haters and doesn’t even make a pretense of trying to be fair or balanced. And that piece doesn’t mention Smith’s comments.
Above, Mercer referred to Smith as “Dr. Smith”, but since I can’t find anything about her on the internet, it’s unclear to me if or when she obtained a doctorate, or where. It’s also unclear to me whether she ever gained academic employment, or employment of any other kind, since her Behe-baiting days.
Further, on the page Ron gave us, one writer indicates puzzlement over the claim that Smith was at “Oklahoma University,” since, he claimed, there is no institution with exactly that name. And indeed, I cannot find a school of exactly that name. So her last known affiliation was with a phantom school?
Since there are so many fans of Ms. Smith here, perhaps one of them can tell us where she is now, and where we can find a CV demonstrating her many scientific accomplishments (in the field of retroviruses, or any other).
In the scenario you describe, no, the student would not be justified in treating you rudely. Her job would be to point out your errors, and leave it at that.
This [the policy of leaving out personal remarks, digs, and edgy language) is standard, traditional, academic practice, in all the natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences, although recently, due to the politicization of the academy, nastiness is starting to creep in. But true scholars and scientists will oppose that development, not celebrate it, as several people here are doing.
You are still off-topic. The charge made by Art was not “DI people use tactics to avoid acknowledging school boy errors.” The charge made by Art was that DI people are rude and dismissive of students and trainees. Is your memory that short, that you have already forgotten what the debate is about? (I would think that psychiatrists, of all people, would have developed all kinds techniques to boost their memory power. But maybe I’m thinking more of psychologists.)
That describes about 90% of the atheist, materialist bloggers on origins sites, and several leading figures of the “New Atheists.” It does not describe Behe, who, for all who know him personally, is disarmingly humble and unpretentious, even self-deprecating. He has a folksy, working-class way of speaking which is a refreshing change from the uptight, virtue-signaling, Ivy League (or more often Ivy League wannabe) snootiness of some of his detractors.
It is also standard, traditional academic practice to acknowledge errors when pointed out by scholars of greater expertise in a subject than oneself, thank the person for pointing this out, and correct or revise an article or book accordingly. You seem curiously unconcerned about how the DI routinely neglects to engage in this aspect of scholarly behaviour which, to my mind, is far more crucial to the scholarly enterprise than choosing the right words and tone in informal communication. Just me, I guess.
No, I 'm discussing a topic related to the main topic of this discussion. There is no rule here that we have keep rigidly to the original topic of a discussion. If that were the case, you should not have interrupted the original discusson to start this one about rudeness from the DI Crew.
I’ll take your word for it. However, you neglect to mention that he is also either an inveterate liar or a rank incompetent who has spent 20 years publishing books and articles crammed with scientific misinformation and fallacious arguments meant to mislead gullible people of faith, and that he has resisted all efforts by better scholars to correct him. But so long as he’s a nice guy, I guess that’s the important thing, right? Funny, but I never noticed that Nobel Prizes have a category for MIss Congeniality.
3 Likes
I only recently read her criticism and Behe’s response
Have you searched for Behe’s apology? I don’t believe you will find one.
Here’s the point: We are discussing rudeness and dismissiventess rather then the merits of the Smith’s critisim or Bete’s rebuttal. It is understandable that Smith stirred negative feelings in Behe and Behe chose to act on those negative feelings instead of acting like an adult, professor and author. There are ways Behe could have gotten his points across. As I said previously he could have easily taken a corrective approach by pointing out Smith’s tone is not best way to make a criticism. Or he could have disregarded the rudeness and joined her by starting out: Nice to meet you ERV and Arnold, you appear to be sharp fellows let’s see if I can help you understand… Then given his rebuttal.
For all that, here we are with numerous comments that could have been avoided.
1 Like
Quite obviously. Welcome to internet blog sites, where almost every discussion gets derailed. There’s no rule against it, but it doesn’t make for good discussion if people keep introducing their pet topics now matter what the subject. (For example, no matter what the subject, if I or any ID-sympathetic person enters into the discussion, there is a better than even chance that sooner or later either Mercer will bring up Meyer and peptidyl transferase or that someone will bring up the Wedge Document.)
I didn’t start this thread; a moderator did. I made my original comment on another thread, and suddenly found my side-remark (which could have been answered quickly and fully in its original place) turned into a new topic. Art made a claim about DI people’s rudeness and dismissiveness toward students. When asked for evidence, he gave one example (not Abbie Smith), and the one text he offered, when read, showed no trace of rudeness or dismissiveness. Art has remained outside of the discussion since then, while others have filled this web page with desperate defenses for the adolescent rudeness of Abbie Smith, even (absurdly) trying to make Behe the villain of that exchange, when he did not initiate the exchange and was in fact the target of the rudeness.
When you jumped in, you immediately began your usual pattern of shifting the topic to all the faults of ID, in this case of Michael Behe, thus deflecting the discussion about Art’s original claim. To the extent that you have addressed Art’s claim, you have come up with just one (count 'em) example, i.e., Behe’s alleged rudeness to Abbie Smith, and that example is from something like 11 years ago. It appears the original claim was sheer bluster, and that you and the others here have tried to cover up the vacuity of the original claim that up by writing hundreds of words defending a young smart-aleck.
In light of your obsession with imaginary “sexism”, shouldn’t you change that title to “Ms. Congeniality”? (After all, another writer here told us that the “Girls” in “Mean Girls” was sexist, so why not apply the same standard to your expressions as well?)
I’d say that this discussion has been fun, except that it hasn’t. Once again, a simple request for evidence for a claim by one person here has led to a multi-person attack on me, on Behe, on ID, etc. The level of defensiveness here is right off the scale. And such a level of defensiveness is generally a sign of the indefensibility of one’s claim. I will take it that no one here can defend the generalization as Art first formulated it, and therefore will move on to more important things.
And that’s how the DI wants it. The last thing they want is an informed discussion of the scientific merits of their claims. If Behe had simply acknowledged his error, then the people who keep emptying their pockets to keep the DI afloat would have realized their hero has feet of clay, and maybe some of them would have found better uses for their hard-earned money then propping up a “scientific” organization whose scientists keep getting science wrong. But so long as the members of the DI never admit to being wrong, the money will keep flowing.
3 Likes
Exactly. And why did they do that? Because it introduced a topic that did not belong in the other thread.
And, to be clear, nothing is wrong with that. Your comment was not deleted and you were not given a warning. It was just moved to another place to better facilitate a focused discussion. Understand now?
2 Likes
I didn’t push it to Side Conversations either. Given recent public complaints from Bechly, I think public discussion is appropriate. No one is being forced to participate.
2 Likes
Debatable.
In Darwin’s time, there was no such thing as a degree in biology. There wasn’t even such a thing as a B.Sc. The closest thing available to a formal qualification in biology was a B.A. which included courses in subjects that would now fall under biology, such as natural history, zoology and botany.
Darwin studied natural history and botany during the course of his BA at Cambridge. So to the extent there were formal qualifications in biology available in Darwin’s time, Darwin had one.
(He had earlier studied zoology and anatomy at Edinburgh, but didn’t complete a qualification there)
1 Like
Yes, very understandable, since she wrote like a cocky smart-aleck, and talked down to a senior scientist.
Shall I take it from your reply that you are such a paragon of self-control that you have never even once in your life responded to unwarranted aggression and rudeness by showing a small degree of irritation?
The facts are these: An arrogant young twit insulted Behe; a research scientist (Musgrave) “looked the other way” regarding the unprofessional rudeness, and then took Behe to task for not immediately replying to the rude writer; Behe explained to research scientist why he did not initially reply to the rudeness, and in doing so, characterized it (correctly) as rude; Behe relented (not because of the condescending attitude of Musgrave, but because his friends requested it), and replied to the science part of the twit’s article, prefacing it with only a very brief remark about her manner of writing; the remark, in context, was not “sexist” as it clearly targeted the large body of anti-ID Panda’s Thumb posters, the vast majority of whom were male (i.e., all of those males were explicitly included in the “Mean Girls” reference); Behe’s relatively mild show of irritation was not even close to the level of irritation (including outright anger and nastiness) I have seen in the reaction of many other “adult” professors to students who were obnoxious to them; and finally, at the time, Behe was being attacked, often in very personal ways, almost daily around the internet, in book reviews, etc., with both his scientific knowledge and his moral character being frequently impugned – a condition which might well finally produce a slight show of irritation even in the best and most restrained of men. On the last point, if you yourself were frequently called a liar, a hypocrite, a coward, and a violator of the ninth commandment (all of which charges were frequently levelled at him by commenters on BioLogos), and were called other names by scientific colleagues, by bloggers, etc., might not a smart-aleck, sarcastic set of comments by an arrogant young undergrad be “the straw that broke the camel’s back” and caused you to slightly falter in your own decorum? Are you so morally pure that you can say this could not possibly happen to you, were you in Behe’s situation at that time?
Further, there is a tacit double standard on your criticism of Behe here. We have on this site someone who, like Behe, is an “adult, professor, and author,” who regularly peppers his posts with digs at me of a personal kind; not once have you told him that he is not behaving like an “adult, professor, and author.” Several of his comments to me have been grayed out for violating the rules of civil discourse (and I wasn’t the one in any of those cases who flagged the comments). If you are so concerned about the decorum that professors ought to maintain in their public speech, it’s odd that you only express that concern when the “violator” is a Christian and ID proponent, such as Behe, but never when a much more frequent and much more aggressive violator is an atheist and unguided evolutionist. I would be more inclined to take you as having the moral high ground regarding Behe’s behavior if you showed anything like a steady opposition to the behavior you here claim to be unacceptable.
Behe does not owe Abbie Smith any apology. She owes him one. But she will never deliver it.
This looks like a good point to remind everyone that we have neither Eddie’s formal name nor his CV.
It’s bad form to demand for others what one isn’t willing to share of oneself.
3 Likes
I knew that when I made my comment.
I have no doubt that Darwin “studied natural history and botany” while he was at Cambridge; those subjects were his passion. He doubtless read many books and articles, and doubtless attended whatever occasional lectures were given on natural history etc. (given that there was no “biology” department). But he was at Cambridge to earn the general B.A. degree, and the requirement for the degree was passing a three-day exam called the Tripos. His biographers Desmond and Moore describe the subjects of the exam. None of them, it seems, was biology. One part of the Tripos was what we would now call Greek and Roman Classics. Another part was Theology. The third part was “Mathematics” and included not only Mathematics as we now understood it, but also some Physics and Astronomy. I have seen no account in which any of his examination questions were on anything to do with biology. See Desmond and Moore’s biography, pp. 87-88.
So while Darwin doubtless privately “studied” biological subjects while a student at Cambridge, he was not examined on them, and his Cambridge degree neither vouched for nor promised any expertise in them. If he learned a lot about biology at Cambridge, he learned it on his own. So my original statement, that he had no “formal qualifications” in biology was entirely correct, regarding Cambridge, and even correct regarding Edinburgh, as he never finished the program. But I have no problem granting that he would have attended lectures on biology, especially human biology, during his abortive study in Edinburgh.
[quote=“Eddie, post:73, topic:15058”] Shall I take it from your reply that you are such a paragon of self-control that you have never even once in your life responded to unwarranted aggression and rudeness by showing a small degree of irritation?
[/quote]
Of course not. When I get irritated I try not to act on the negative feelings it arouses.
If I am making a novel criticism or response, I have learned not to act quickly and take time to think it out. Before hitting the reply button and ask myself “am I relaying my points clearly” and “did I include anything that would diminish the value or take away from from what I am attempting to convey.” I don’t always succeed. Like everyone else I make mistakes. I learned that the best way to handle mistakes, for myself, is to admit to them, apologize if called for and move on.
I can’t take credit or prevent what others say or do.
Regardless of the unprofessionism of student Smith’s criticism, considering Behe’s position as an author and professor, he ended up on the loosing end.
2 Likes
“Facts” he says. What would Inigo Montoya say?
And, right, calling someone an “arrogant young twit” is totally respectful and not at all rude. No siree.
3 Likes
The cases are entirely different. Ms. Smith never hid her identity in the past, and so there is no reason to think she would hide her identity now. If she is a faculty member somewhere, her CV would almost certainly be on the school’s website, and again would be public knowledge. I’m not asking her to reveal anything about herself that she wouldn’t want made public.
I trust from your deflecting answer that you don’t have a clue where she is now, whether she ever finished her Ph.D., etc. That’s fine, I didn’t expect you would. I was addressing the active research scientists here, who might be aware of any published work she has put out since. Mercer in particular called her “Dr. Smith” which he had no business doing unless he had confirmed she had a doctoral degree, so he ought to know something about at least her past location. Maybe he has some information.
So you wrote that Darwin had no formal qualifications in biology, while knowing that was effectively impossible, so your statement meant nothing?
AIUI the Tripos was optional, and students were allowed to register for an ordinary, non-honours degree instead - and Darwin did so.
Perhaps you could check.
According to Wikipedia, which is usually accurate on such things, “Darwin enrolled for John Stevens Henslow’s lectures on botany.” So he wouldn’t have learnt it on his own.
Is that wrong too?
2 Likes
Dr. Smith is currently an Associate Scientist at the Hope Clinic of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University in Georgia.
4 Likes
But you can control what you do; and here, what you have done is chastise Behe for slowing very slight irritation in the face of youthful insolence, on the grounds that professors should not show such irritation, while not uttering a word about several of the professors here who have shown much greater irritation, and even sometimes nastiness, toward me and other ID-sympathetic people (some of whom may be young, as young as Abbie Smith was) who post here. Your fastidious concern over Behe’s decorum, when seen in the light of your complete unconcern about the decorum of the atheists here, seems somewhat questionable in its motivation.