Should in science rely on faceless people?

I just gave you my position on this Toni.

Can you explain to me @Toni_Torppa how exactly @evograd’s argument regarding Jeanson’s wives of Noah’s sons narrative based on an unrooted tree would change if you knew his name?

1 Like

While you are at it @Toni_Torppa explain to me how exactly @evograd’s explanation of Jeanson’s various blunders regarding conflating de novo mutation rates with neutral substitution rates would change if you knew his name.

If it makes you feel any better, @swamidass does actually know my real name and can verify that I’m not a grandmother in a nursing home.

I don’t think anyone should be obligated to reveal their identity, their words should speak for themselves. I can tell you my credentials but if you choose not to believe me, that’s fine, it doesn’t bother me. I would ask any reader to assess my blog posts on their merits, not because of my qualifications.

I’m getting a little bored of your focus here being on my identity, motivations, and qualifications in the last few threads. Why don’t you actually engage with the issues I raise in my blog posts?


Well you get to see that, but I don’t think it should be that blue-eyed in science that professors constantly refer to faceless blogging. The prestige of science, in my view, requires that they themselves openly make an article on the subject. They don’t have that professor’s title in vain, it should describe openness and trust.

The article itself on Jeanson’s scientific follies was openly made. You see to be doing everything possible to avoid the actual scientific content of evograd’s excellent rebuttal in favor of blowing this squid-ink.


Notice that @evograd’s blog extensively cited the literature and gives the reader every opportunity to verify his claims. You obviously however Toni aren’t interested in any conclusions that clash with your religious beliefs so it’s no surprise to any one you will make every excuse to jam your fingers in your ears on this topic.

1 Like

You’re accusing him of lying again. Why are you constantly doing that?

There is no blind trust. We’re reading what he says, analyzing his arguments, and discovering them to be valid. It follows from that that he knows what he’s talking about. An expert can recognize nonsense, even when you can’t.

I’m willing to accept that he isn’t lying, especially since the evidence in the post suggests that he knows enough about the subject. Of course, it also doesn’t matter who he is; the post should be evaluated on its own merits. If you are incapable of that (and you are), then you will have to either believe or disbelieve the words of the experts. Like me.


Toni, will you please answer these two very relevant questions? Thanks in advance.

1 Like

Too bad; that would actually be cooler than you being a real grad student.


Well whether or not Swamidass knows you is not the answer to this start, which is about how science should work in general. Especially when acting from publicly respected positions.

I completely disagree when it comes to public statements by the university professors do. Discussions in discussion forums are a different matter.

This is probably the most incoherent sentence I’ve seen this month. Congratulations!

And how important do you think your views are held to be, in the greater world, on this? Do you really believe that scientists are obligated to respond in detail to cranks like Jeanson, when a well-done, completely satisfactory response like evograd’s has already been written?

Understand: this stuff is far, far below the radar for most scientists. They are much too busy keeping current with the fast-moving literature in their fields to spend a lot of time answering a blinkered creationist like Jeanson. Most of them think that this new wave of creationism died with the Kitzmiller decision – and most of them weren’t paying it much attention before that, either. It’s simply not relevant to them. Now, get Jeanson to do some serious academic work that actually supports his claims, get that published in real journals (hint: NOT “Bio-Complexity”), and then people will read it and respond to it. As long as he’s publishing trade books to make fundamentalists happy, he’s not someone they’re going to engage with.

Indeed they should not have that title in vain. And nothing here suggests anything unworthy of trust or lacking in openness. If only the same could be said for Jeanson!


If a professor says “this is a good essay”, why should the author of that essay be relevant? Explain yourself a bit more.


No, but I ask, does in science have to rely on faceless people?

Seems like all you know is Creationist argument from authority and are upset because science doesn’t use argument from authority but rather argument from published scientific analysis. Is that what you can’t understand?


None of this matters at all. It’s textbook concern trolling.
"Oh I’m just concerned about anonymity and trust and bla bla bla bla".

No you’re not.

Deal with Evograd’s criticisms instead of trying to change the subject again. It doesn’t matter who says 2+2=4. That is either wrong or right regardless.


No. But this isn’t science. This is a critique of Jeanson’s cargo cult science. It’s never going to be a formal academic publication, because cargo cult science isn’t worth the effort. Be glad that it gets any sort of attention at all, and now actually pay attention to those responses, which demolish Jeanson’s claims in detail.

I will note also that the scientists here have mostly made their own responses in various threads here, and you ignore those too. This is another avoidance attempt on your part, and it’s a worse time-waster than try to analyze Jeanson’s nonsense was.


Science doesn’t rely on faceless people. Do Creationists have to rely on false claims and fallacious arguments?

1 Like

My initial reply was lighthearted but now I do wonder what you think of the many YEC articles that are written under pseudonyms. Do you see those as not honest science. Should other YECs stop referencing their work? Why would you trust them if you know nothing about them?

I can tell you that a number of us reviewed EvoGrads work before he published it. I don’t have any problem endorsing EvoGrads critiques. Its an enormous effort and I am thankful that someone as qualified as Evograd was willing to spend so much time to do the thankless work. We all have other responsibilities and unlike Jeanson aren’t paid full time to write this stuff. When Evograd has done some a thorough job with his review why should some of us spend out valuable time to reinvent the wheel just to satisfy you and Jeanson?


This ^^^^^

This thread has to be one of the most blatant attempts at distracting from the real problems with Creationist nonsense I’ve seen at PS to date.