Continuing the discussion from 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]