Would Jeanson Please Correct A Clear Misrepresentation?

Continuing the discussion from Jeanson Accuses Duff of Misconduct…Again:

The AIG biologist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson has been accusing @David_MacMillan and @Joel_Duff of research misconduct (Jeanson Accuses Duff of Misconduct...Again).

We’ve been discussing the ethics of public accusations like this (Jeanson Accuses Duff of Misconduct...Again), and I hope that Nathanial considers his actions from here with these standards in mind. In particular, is he willing to apply the same standards to himself that he applies to others?

Whistleblowers have a responsibility to participate honorably in such procedures by respecting the serious consequences for those they accuse of misconduct, and by using the same standards to correct their own errors that they apply to others.
Whistleblower's Bill of Rights - APPENDIX A | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity

In his most recent article, Jeanson misrepresents me quite badly. He writes:

As a result, at least one theistic evolutionist, when confronted with student’s own admissions, has declined to defend the student’s blog.36

So, this sentence is totally is false. Jeanson justifies his comment with a footnote that references this sentence by me:

Considering the full thread, where I also endorse the legitimacy of @evograd’s series, this would be a better summary of my thoughts.

At least one theistic evolutionist, clarified that the focus is not on the student’s blog, but the student is sufficiently qualified to critique Jeanson’s work and raises important points for him to address. [link here]

Now that it has been clarified, I’d like to see a correction. I am not accusing Nathaniel of misconduct here, but I would like a correction.

[For those of you who do want to read @evograd’s review, here is a great place to start: Reviewing “Replacing Darwin” – Part 6: Jeanson’s Fulcrum Fails – EvoGrad]

11 Likes

Swamidass you are now changing your statements. Or can you show
where in the full original thread does you endorse evograd? You doesn’t!

No I am not.

Yes, I can. I recommended the review to you, which is an endorsement of its legitimacy.

Elsewhere (and here), I have stated that @evograd is sufficiently qualified to make this critique. His blog was in fact peer reviewed.

9 Likes

@evograd’s extensive review of Jeanson’s book was better than Jeanson’s book. @evograd went step by step demolishing all Jeanson’s agruments using the latest results in biology, genetics, and evolution in way that YEC’s can understand and contrast with YEC pseudoscience. @evograd’s review was more of an achievement than Jeanson’s book. The review is more worthy of publication in Science than the book.

2 Likes

Jeanson is free to disagree with @evograd’s review or my assessment of the review. It seems like a serious issue if he intends to leave uncorrected his misrepresentation of my assessment of @evograd’s review. That is the focus of this thread.

3 Likes

6 posts were split to a new topic: The definition of peer review