Nick Matzke – Book Burner?

_{Barry Arrington
June 30, 2013

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell. See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers. Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers. He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents.

Let us do a little thought experiment. Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of the book. The printer has done his work and the first printing of the book is finished. The good news is that not a single copy has left the printer’s warehouse, and they are all in a pile that has been drenched in gasoline. Nick, all you have to do is come over and toss a match on the pile of books and it will be as if they were never published in the first place.”

Nick follows UD and posts here from time to time, so I have two questions for him:

(1) Nick would you have tossed the match?

(2) If the answer to (1) is “no,” are you not a hypocrite? After all, the ultimate outcome from tossing the match would be identical to what you actually did – i.e., no book out there for people to buy.

BKA: Updated in response to Dr. Sewell’s comment @ 2.

Comments

Denyse O'Leary:
Keiths, when have you found me supporting an attempt to prevent a publisher from issuing a book on the verge of publication just because it was yet another crock of Darwin? You know perfectly well that that is what we are discussing, not my well-justified skepticism of the Beard and his followers. If people want to read and believe Darwinism. it is their choice, just as it is mine to call out the crackpottery when ever I see it.
No, Denyse, we were discussing your accusation:
Elizabeth Liddle, you are a censor because you attempt to deny reputability to ideas you disagree with.
Focus on that phrase "attempt to deny reputability." Now reread this, from your comment above:
If people want to read and believe Darwinism. it is their choice, just as it is mine to call out the crackpottery when ever I see it.
Are you really claiming that "calling out the crackpottery whenever I see it" isn't an "attempt to deny reputability" to Darwinian evolution? Please. You are a censor by your own definition. Nice foot shot.keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Darwin's Doubt Will Debut at #7 on New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Bestseller List - July 1, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/darwins_doubt_w073921.html Somebody call Matzke to make sure he don't hurt himself. :)bornagain77_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

timaeus: find it beyond belief that if the papers at the conference were largely substandard, that Springer’s internal and external review processes would not have uncovered this. One or two weak papers might have slipped through the net, but the whole set? That’s hardly credible.
Evidently, your scenario (and what others here are surmising) may not accurately capture (gasp) or represent what actually occurred and in what sequence. Doesn't seem that out of synch or improper to me. Also, what is wrong with a person(s) proposing to not continue a relationship with a company (that they pay to publish their manuscripts) if they feel that the company no longer represents their interests through their actions? for example:
Eric Merkel-Sobotta, executive vice president of corporate communications at Springer in Germany, said in an e-mail, that the initial proposal for the book was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers. “However, once the complete manuscript had been submitted, the series editors became aware that additional peer review would be necessary,” Merkel-Sobotta said. “This is currently underway, and the automatically generated pre-announcement for the book on Springer has been removed until the peer-reviewers have made their final decision.” Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/01/book-intelligent-design-proponents-upsets-scientists#ixzz2XqhDHGSz Inside Higher Ed
franklin_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

Considering the sort of garbage you have pulled on Darwinists, including Darwin himself, I am skeptical.
Now that's the sort of garbage I would pull!scordova_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Sal,
I wouldn’t think to pull that sort of garbage on a Darwinist.
Considering the sort of garbage you have pulled on Darwinists, including Darwin himself, I am skeptical.
2 scordova March 20, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power
Charles Darwin Autobiography
The full quote:
Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.
Perhaps KF will treat you to one of his "for shame" and "please do better" lectures, but somehow I doubt it.keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Thank you for your clarifications. I know that Nick will not respond to any questions from anyone he associates with the ID side. He may respond to you. If he is amenable to replying to you and allowing you to post either his actual words, or your own summary of his words, here, or on your site, that would be helpful. I find it beyond belief that if the papers at the conference were largely substandard, that Springer's internal and external review processes would not have uncovered this. One or two weak papers might have slipped through the net, but the whole set? That's hardly credible. The way you and others represent ID science, it is so bad that even a non-specialist can see the errors in it. And the way Nick represents ID science, anyone can smell the "creationism" in it a mile away. So presumably, on Nick's characterization of the likely quality of the papers he hadn't read, at least every other paper would have been decaying refuse whose stench would give it away to a reviewer with even minimal scientific competence. But apparently this was not the reaction of the publisher or the reviewers. So were the papers accidentally sent out to the Three Stooges for review, instead of to profs at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.? It seems more likely that the reviewers thought that the essays were, if not uniformly great, of at least a high enough standard to be worth presenting to the reader for the reader's own judgment. So until you or Nick gets back to me with evidence to the contrary, that is the assumption I will make. I am glad that you agree that, if the actual reason for pulling the publication was not the publisher's honest revised judgment that the papers were poor, but rather fear of boycotts or other reprisals, then this was thuggery and deserves to be condemned. And it is certainly clear that thuggery has been the cause of publisher cowardice in other cases (documented here), so such a hypothesis is not a priori implausible. You say that third-party intervention *after a publisher has accepted a paper* is not particularly rare. I would like you to document this. I believe it may happen when a third party knows that a certain paper was plagiarized, has appeared elsewhere, etc. I do not believe it is very common outside of this. All the full-time scientists I know of are very busy people, who have their hands full with teaching, research, and peer-reviewing papers that they have been *asked* by journal editors to review; they have very little time left over to interfere in the peer-review process of other papers concerning which they had no initial involvement. I would guess that only 1 out of a 100 full-time scientists has ever, even once in his/her life, interceded as a third party to request that a publisher not publish *an already accepted paper*. And I would guess that in almost all such cases, the scientist in question has known something very specific about the contents of the allegedly problematic paper -- either heard it read at a conference, or seen an early draft, etc. That certainly was not the case here. Matzke was not at the conference and had not read or seen early drafts of any of the papers; further, some of the authors were unknown to him and he would have had no way of judging the likely quality of their work. So this *was* unusual behavior under such circumstances. In fact, I would say that third-party intervention even *before* a paper is accepted by a journal is relatively rare. Scientists are simply too busy doing peer-reviews of their own to be policing the peer-review process in other situations in order to make sure that the other peer-reviewers are doing their jobs well. And it would be professionally insulting in any case: a scientist wouldn't walk into another scientist's lab and tell the other scientist how to conduct his experiments (unless his advice was invited); so why would he write to a scientific publisher and say, "I hear you are thinking of publishing an article by Tom Smith, and I think Tom Smith's work is trash, and I don't think your usual reviewers, Bobby Jones and Glen Carpenter, are competent enough in the field to detect the trashiness of it, so I urge you to reject the article even if they recommend acceptance"? That would be an insult to the other reviewers, and to the publisher (implying that he was too ignorant in the field to appoint qualified reviewers). So I contend that this happens rarely. But if you think otherwise, document it, please.Timaeus_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

KeithS,
Springer obliged to publish the proceedings? An astrology conference? A holocaust denial conference?
Springer is not obliged, they aren't even in the case of BI. Springer was willing to publish the BI (after all one of the world's top genetic engineers and top computer engineers were at the conference). At issue is Matzke's interference. And like the stranger coming out of nowhere to discipline a misbehaving child, Matzke is crossing boundaries to meddle. It didn't register when Barry first posted this, but as we exchanged comments and you reminded me of my own public disagreements with IDists, I realized I'd have to stoop pretty low to pull the stunts Matzke is pulling. Springer is not obligated, they never were, they still aren't. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue at hand is Nick's bullying and meddling. By comparison, I wouldn't think to pull that sort of garbage on a Darwinist.scordova_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Sal, I'm still interested in your answer to my question:
Now back to my question:
If someone organizes a geocentrism conference, is Springer obliged to publish the proceedings? An astrology conference? A holocaust denial conference?
After all, those meet your criterion of “the proceedings of a CONFERENCE which record what people have declared.”
keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

As a matter of principle there are some considerations. If for example Spriger-Verlag staff were my good friends, and I really felt their reputation could be damaged, I would feel some obligation to privately say, "hey, are you aware of ...." It's another thing to suggests publicly, "Hey Springer, we'll make sure you pay for this. We'll ensure you're humiliated." Then there is just the notion of appropriate boundaries. The publications negotiation was between Springer and the members of the conference. This is meddling from the outside. To illustrate, suppose a I see a kid is really misbehaving. It doesn't give me (a stranger) license to go up and reprimand him. Something is wrong about me acting like a parent. In Nick's case, this smacks of acting like thought police. As I said, I've publicly disagreed with one of the Conference authors, I've expressed some criticism of the work of other conference authors, but I would never think to handle the matter in the way it was done. There is something to be said about due process. This had the earmarks of bullying. When I first read Barry's OP, I wasn't too incensed, "same old same old", but when I thought about the fact how low I'd have to stoop to pull the stunt Nick is pulling merely because I disagreed, then it dawned on me how outrageous his behavior was. If one wants to oppose what was published by the BI conference, publish your rebuttal, not this underhanded undermining of a viewpoint you don't agree with ( and that's hard to justify if haven't actually read the papers)! It's just bullying.scordova_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Barry, Why create a new OP every time you want to make a comment? I think you have permission to comment on this thread, and if not, you can ask yourself for it.keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Lizzie:
I have no doubt that the reason Nick suspected the review process had not been rigorous is that he is well-acquainted with the works of the authors and has found them in the past to be, well, not-rigorous.
William:
You have no doubt? – even though you have not been in contact with Nick about this? Your ideological protectionist bias is showing, Dr. Liddle.
Before the BI brouhaha, weren't you aware that Nick thinks ID is crap, William? Why wouldn't Lizzie be aware of that? I have no doubt that she was. :)keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

He began the fight, TSZ harboured it, I will finish it. It is as simple as that, for one of my ilk and blood. KF
Bydand!keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

T @ 115: 1. Springer is a famous and distinguished Science publisher. Indeed, I personally testify to the significance of some of their work in my own studies. 2. Given relevant laws and simple professional diligence, there is not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace that Springer Verlag had not read and reviewed such a Proceedings before investing in setting up for publication. This is an obvious, straight out case of an intimidatory letter leading to backing away from a fight with the ruthless. KFkairosfocus_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

lpadron: you are almost certainly correct. Except that it's worth making the point that some of us think that ID papers (with a very few exceptions) really are bad science!Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

William:
Or do you suppose he is primarily interested in keeping the works of ID and creationist advocates from being “non-rigorously” reviewed?
I suspect he is primarily interested in keeping the works of ID and creationist advocates from being published without rigorous review.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Lizzie @ 128: It's just as likely that Mr. Matzke didn't believe peer review was rigorous *to his satisfaction*. That would be an entirely different matter. To demand rigorous review where one only suspects it hasn't occurred seems to me prejudicial. This is especially the case given the publisher. Has Mr. Matzke contacted the publisher with the same concern over other matters? Prolly not. Has he agreed with everything and everyone they've published? Again, prolly not. I'd rather just call a spade a spade: Matzke has as much an axe to grind against ID as others have against Darwinism. 'Tis the way of the world and there's no accounting for it.lpadron_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

KS & DiEb Sorry, that turnabout your'e in the same boat immoral equivalency, blame the victim enabling tactic fails. In fact it trips a further warning flag on what is going on. Take a moment to look at substance before playing tactics from 85 years ago again. Yes, I know the tactics work very well with those who are superficial or don't have access to facts. That is why they were used in the first place. That too is a lesson we genuinely need to learn from that history (which it seems an awful lot of people are disastrously ignorant on). For instance shortly after Hitler was given the chancellorship in an ill-advised compromise deal, there was a Reichstag fire, probably set by a half mad dutch boy. It was seized upon to accuse the communists of plotting against the state which led to voting in an enabling act that left Hitler a dictator. The turnabout, false accusation worked: those setting out to coup panicked the public to fear that a scapegoat group was the real threat of a coup. The rest was history. Since someone is playing a poems game, let me quote Evangelical Free Church Bishop and Dachau survivor Martin Niemoller (of, From U-Boat to Pulpit) on the history:
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
So, the tactics being used on us now, are all too well trodden. If you were to do the responsible thing DiEb {on evident track record, I have no such expectation of KS . . . ) you would have seen that the invidious association I pointed out as slander is on a point where for centuries and today, there are any number of people who have principled questions on homosexual conduct and the ongoing homosexualisation of our civilisation and key institutions in it such as marriage and family. In that context, to invidiously compare one who has such objections to Nazis is an outrage, unjustified by evident facts that can be followed up. (For just one source with hard to find, serious evidence, cf. here. Ponder the implications of statistical incidence, shifting culture-relative manifestations and the three patterns: Western, Greek and Melanesian, pointed out.) On the other case censorship, book burning, stereotyping, career busting and the like are things that are blatantly unprincipled and counter to academic and general freedom, and to point out that this pattern is typical of fascism is an historically valid comparison. And FYI, fascism is closer to our political culture today than I want to think about, having seen my homeland devastated for a generation by political messianism and utopianism and the extremism the so easily trigger. Sometimes, it gives me the shudders, as I reflect on how vulnerable we so often seem to be to the blandishments of would be political messiahs, to the talking points and manipulative tricks of their media handlers, and to the associated Nietzschean superman anti-ethic and politics of state domination of society in hopes of deliverance. The little known but well grounded fact that classic fascism in both Italy and Germany was a movement of the LEFT, should also give us pause. So, sorry, I refuse to be intimidated from making legitimate and warranted comparisons because others will try to resort to yet another parallel from a dark chapter in history, turn-speech twist-about accusations of little merit. That this is the response we are seeing right here at UD and just above in this thread, trips yet another flag. Do you want me to go on, to how say the Czechs were cast as oppressing the Sudeten Germans, by way of winkling them out of their major fortification lines? And how this led to the disaster at Munich, where that plucky little nation was sold out on a bogus promise of peace in our time? Do I need to go on to the concentration camp prisoners dressed in polish uniform posed as attacking German radio stations and murdered for propaganda purposes? Do I need to point onward to five million dead Poles, including fully half the Holocaust? Where of course, the Jews, classically, were cast as THE enemies of the German people and responsible for the stab in the back that was claimed to be the reason for defeat in WWI. Thence, the Shoah. And of course the motivation for Barbarossa sold to the German Army's leaders was that it was pre-emptive of an expected stab in the back by the Red Army. Was that 25 - 27 million Russians dead? I hope the danger of twistabout, blame the victim turnspeech propaganda tactics is now riveted in our minds so that I will have no further reason to point to it again. And, I will not be intimidated from drawing out legitimate historical parallels as warnings. Do I need to make it plain that my very first political and historical opinion was anti-fascism, absorbed at my mother's knees? I hope that begins to communicate the magnitude of the outrage perpetrated by denizens at TSZ and harboured by its leadership. But, I need to make a positive point. The Russians are right: dwell on the past, you lose an eye. Forget the past, you lose both your eyes. Especially, when the rhetorical retort to pointing out valid parallels, is to trip the warning flag on yet another parallel: turn-speech tactics. I know, I know, the parallels I have drawn and others have drawn are painful. It was shockingly painful, too, for genteel ladies from the 1780's on sipping tea sweetened with slave grown sugar to be confronted with the likes of that cartoon of a captive girl flipped upside down and strung up by a foot using a rope in preparation for a whipping of her naked body that would scar her up for life. But, those genteel well dressed ladies of polished manners needed to know the real cost of that sweet treat they were sipping. They needed to know that their enabling behaviour was a contribution to unspeakable evil. (Much, much worse was done that I will not revolt you be reporting.) And in our day, we need to understand what is on the march, and what it has been doing. And if it takes a painful tour of shame that exposes what has been going on in the name of science and science education, in the teeth of the sort of denial and enabling that have been going on that is now necessary. And remember, this is coming from a man whose innocent family have been held hostage to the threats and outing tactics of Darwinist bully-boys. When OM tried the trick of pushing me in the same boat with Nazis, he picked the wrong man to pick a fight with. He began the fight, TSZ harboured it, I will finish it. It is as simple as that, for one of my ilk and blood. KFkairosfocus_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Because reviews should be rigorous.
Does Nick send letters to all publishers on the eve of the publication of some scientific work advising them to be rigorous?
I have no doubt that the reason Nick suspected the review process had not been rigorous is that he is well-acquainted with the works of the authors and has found them in the past to be, well, not-rigorous.
You have no doubt? - even though you have not been in contact with Nick about this? Your ideological protectionist bias is showing, Dr. Liddle. Do you suppose Nick scours the net for info on upcoming publications of all scientists he has reason to doubt the work thereof in order to send threatening letters to the publisher unless they "rigorously review" the work? Or do you suppose he is primarily interested in keeping the works of ID and creationist advocates from being "non-rigorously" reviewed?William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

So a group of scientists with good credentials offers some papers up to Springer for review and publication as the proceedings of a conference they had at Cornell. Springer agrees, gets the papers, has them reviewed and approved, and is set for publication and makes announcements and places ads. Then Nick Matzke et al, having not even read the papers, warn Springer that something they are about to publish is a collection of papers generated by IDists and/or creationists. Springer, which doesn't want to be associated with ID or creationism, immediately (and without any rational warrant) orders "further review" on the basis of a threatening letter from a source that admittedly knows nothing about the material being published. So, after the unwarranted censorship from publication based upon the fear of a major scientific publisher sullying their brand with "creationist" or "ID" friendly material, anti-ID advocates can continue their claim that ID gets little publication in major, mainstream science venues - when it is they that go about threatening the reputations of any willing to associate themselves with "ID" or "creationism. See how that works, Dr. Liddle? Or is your still head too far down in the sand?William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

From O'Leary: Keiths, when have you found me supporting an attempt to prevent a publisher from issuing a book on the verge of publication just because it was yet another crock of Darwin? You know perfectly well that that is what we are discussing, not my well-justified skepticism of the Beard and his followers. If people want to read and believe Darwinism. it is their choice, just as it is mine to call out the crackpottery when ever I see it. I see so much of it, I should hire an assistant. Eventually, readers will tire of cheap Darwindunits - with only intermittent help from me. Then the publishers will have to be more selective about the Darwindunits they publish, with no help from censors. That is how life SHOULD work. Liddle chooses to support people who think and do quite otherwise from me, and I fear - I am sorry to say it - that Barry has her number pretty well. So these are supposed to be the heirs of Galileo and John Stuart Mill? How the world changes.News_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

How is it “fine” for Nick et al to suggest that Springer review something “rigorously” that Nick et al themselves have never even read? On what rational basis is such an entirely uninformed recommendation tendered?
Because reviews should be rigorous. I have no doubt that the reason Nick suspected the review process had not been rigorous is that he is well-acquainted with the works of the authors and has found them in the past to be, well, not-rigorous. To demand rigorous review where you suspect there has been slack editing is just fine. To exert the kind of pressure you suggest was exerted is not. If you are correct, Nick et al were in the wrong. If I am correct, he wasn't.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

What I do not understand is equating the peer-review system, which is a system designed to ensure that scientific papers meet a minimal standard of validity, with Nazis and book-burning and censorship.
Nobody here is making such an equivalence. It is only in the fantasy in your mind that this has anything to do with the peer review system. The book had already been reviewed and approved for publication. Then a source that has nothing of value to add about the quality of the papers (already reviewed) insists, laced with threats, that the papers be further reviewed ... and Springer capitulates? On what grounds? If Nick et al were not simply seeking to intimidate Springer, on what basis could they write a letter to Springer condemning the pending publication of that book?
William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

From O’Leary: Elizabeth Liddle, you are a censor because you attempt to deny reputability to ideas you disagree with. I wonder whether you even know very much about the Cornell conference or the papers read there.
I have so far read about half the papers. I do not wish to "deny reputability" to ideas I disagree with. I do wish to "deny reputability" with papers I think do not meet the standards of scientific research. There is a big difference. I quite frequently review papers whose conclusions I think are probably wrong, but if the methodology is sound and the arguments valid, I recommend acceptance. However, if a paper comes in whose conclusions I think are correct, but which are reached via unsound argument or are unsupported by the data, then I recommend revise or reject.
You have no fact-based idea of the quality of the papers; you made the decision based on who wrote them.
No. I read them with interest. My judgement was based on the papers, although it is true that acquaintance with prior writings of various authors may have led me to have low expectations. However, some authors were new to me.
Then you point to trivial examples of censorship you claim you would oppose.
I could point you to virtually anything whose censorship I would oppose. I would condone censorship only in the most overwhelming public interest.
I think that you are happy and proud of being a censor. The odd thing is that today such persons so often consider themselves to be liberals.
I am not happy and proud to be a censor because I am not a censor. I am very much opposed to censorship. I do consider myself to be a liberal.
But honestly, I do not consider that I am conversing with you, but rather with any out there who understand what a fair assessment of ideas would mean. To all you others: On Canada Day (today), I am proud to report that we have just this last week destroyed infamous Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, supported and promoted by multitudes of liberals in defiance of any meaningful concept of free speech. The battle is not over; those people occupy many key positions of power. This is just a shot across the bow – but it will not be our fault if it is not heard round the world.
I am in general against laws against free speech, including laws against hate speech under most circumstances, as well as blasphemy. I think the best counter to ideas you disapprove of is rebuttal, not suppression, a point I have been making repeatedly to kairosfocus over the last few days. I supported the BBC over their invitation to the odious NF campaigner, Nick Griffin on Question Time. He was given his moment of free speech, and revealed himself to be the racist thug that he is. His support never recovered. My favoured model of peer-review would be to publish everything, whether or not it receives favorable review, together with the reviews themselves. With online publishing this is becoming increasingly possible. But while we have the system of peer-review in place, then I think that all papers should meet that standard. The best part of peer-review I think, is not the reject/accept part but the critique itself. Whether or not a journal accepts a paper I submit, I nearly always find the reviews helpful, and end up with a better paper. Only rarely (but not never) does revision to please reviewers make a paper worse.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Denyse O'Leary:
Elizabeth Liddle, you are a censor because you attempt to deny reputability to ideas you disagree with.
Denyse, you can't be serious. You are a censor by your own definition, because you consistently try to deny reputability to "Darwinism" and "materialist neuroscience". Your definition is ridiculous.keiths_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

If they suggested that Springer review them rigorously, then that is absolutely fine.
How is it "fine" for Nick et al to suggest that Springer review something "rigorously" that Nick et al themselves have never even read? On what rational basis is such an entirely uninformed recommendation tendered?William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

The irony is, Nick Matzke et Panda al are so concerned about the "reputation" of Springer that they send a letter warning Springer about the content of papers Nick et al have not read, and could not have read. Springer, having already read and reviewed the papers, then - on the advice of completely uninformed third parties in letters laced with threats - then decides to not publish the book - a book already reviewed and approved for publication prior to the threatening letter. How can this action do anything but destroy any value the Springer name might have held? To decide after receiving a threatening letter from uninformed sources to "further review" the book, and then not publish it, is a complete abandonment of any semblance of integrity. What they should have done is laugh off Matzke's letter and continue with the process. And see how Elizabeth underplays Nick's role as if it is unthinkable that an undergrad and a few of his friends could intimidate Springer; larger companies have been intimidated by less. It's amazing how reputations can be ruined these days by the efforts of one person or a small cadre of dedicated individuals. All that Nick et al has to do is start a campaign of associating the Springer brand with "creationism" and it's a smear (unfortunately) that will stick and get passed around. Is Dr Liddle so ignorant of politics, and political smear campaigns, that she doesn't know how easy it is to bully others this way - even big companies? The same thing happened in the climate field, where a small cadre of warming alarmists threatened to blackball a respected journal if they published research detrimental to the alarmist position.William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

William
What happened is that Nick and others exercised thuggish intimidation on Springer and Springer, acting in fear of what a few devoted people can do to reputations (especially via the internet) should they set their mind to it, pulled the book from publication at the last minute.
IF this is what happened, I condemn it.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Barry:
Liddle: “But why people can’t see that rejecting a piece of scholarship because it falls below the required standards for an academic journal is not the same as censorship I cannot understand.” Liddle knows that the Springer had already peer reviewed the papers.
Actually, I didn't, as I said in my post. I erroneously thought that they had undertaken to publish the conference proceedings prior to the conference.
She knows that the Panda crew pressured Springer
I know that now.
to suppress the book not because they thought the papers were sub-par. They had no idea whether the papers were sub-part. AGAIN, THEY HAD NOT READ THEM!
If they pressured Springer to reject the papers out of hand, that would have been wrong. If they suggested that Springer review them rigorously, then that is absolutely fine. Springer claimed apparently to have sent the papers out for further review. Subsequently Springer rejected the papers. Had the further reviews come back positive, then clearly they should have been published. We must assume they came back negative. Whether this was because the reviewers were biased we can only speculate, but the error is with Springer, not with Nick. Also, of the papers I've read, several do not meet the standards I would expect from a peer-reviewed paper. It is also possible that they further reviews came back positive but that Springer were so intimidated by a Panda boycott that they caved anyway. Again, enquiries should be directed to Springer.
Liddle pretends not to understand what the fuss is all about. Pathetic.
What I do not understand is equating the peer-review system, which is a system designed to ensure that scientific papers meet a minimal standard of validity, with Nazis and book-burning and censorship. However, if your complaint is about biased peer-review, you have a good point. But your target should be Springer, I suggest, rather than Nick. And if you really think that the Panda's Thumb scared Springer into rejecting the book, then you have a serious case. But the case is not helped by the quality of the papers that are now available.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

But why people can’t see that rejecting a piece of scholarship because it falls below the required standards for an academic journal is not the same as censorship I cannot understand.
This is a straw many you have invented in your own mind - a fantasy story that nobody here has argued or claimed and which the evidence does not indicate happened at all. What happened is that Nick and others exercised thuggish intimidation on Springer and Springer, acting in fear of what a few devoted people can do to reputations (especially via the internet) should they set their mind to it, pulled the book from publication at the last minute. But, instead of seeing what actually happened and condemning it for the thuggish censorship and slimy, spineless capitulation (on the part of Springer) that it is, you blithely turn your head and make inane comments about some fantasy in your head about submissions that do not meet journal standards, imagining that this is what might have happened - no, must have happened, because it's the only explanation that leaves Nick and the rest of your side's reputation unsullied. Is it possible that Springer suddenly changed its mind about publishing the book, and the arrival of Nick and Panda's uninformed, ideological threats prefacing that decision just a coincidence? Sure. Just like flipping 500 heads in a row is "possible".William J Murray_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Timaeus
I originally accepted part of your earlier answer that I no longer accept, because new facts have come to light. Please read the reply of Julianbre at 98 above. You had made out that Springer had decided to publish the conference papers without actually having read them. That struck me as suspicious at the time; after all, you yourself, and Matzke, and everyone else here, seems to regard Springer as a high-quality science publisher. High-quality science publishers *don’t normally agree to publish volumes of papers they haven’t first read*. I therefore would have expected that, *at the very least*, the top editors at Springer (some of whom would surely have science qualifications) would have read the papers, and, *more probably*, they would have sent some or all of the papers out for peer review as well. So I found your account dubious, but did not challenge it, because I had no factual basis.
It was an error on my part. Sometimes publishers undertake to publish conference proceedings before the conference has taken place. Clearly these are not read before the undertaking is made. I had thought this was the case here. I now understand that the manuscript was submitted after the conference, and had been reviewed. I have made that clear, I think, in my post above.
Julianbre’s information, if correct, completely undermines the factual basis on which part of your reply to me rests. Your reply to me assumes that Springer had not read the papers, and therefore that Nick’s “alert” would have given them important information they did not previously possess. In that light, Nick’s “alert” could conceivably have been justified. But now that justification is gone. Further, even if it turned out, by a freak, that Springer *hadn’t* read the papers, Nick could not have known that when he wrote to them. He would have assumed — since he thinks that Springer is a reputable science publisher — that they would have read them. So when he wrote to them, he wasn’t thinking, “Gee, these poor suckers are going to publish papers they haven’t read, and get burned!” He was thinking, “Springer has made a very bad judgment, having read these papers and yet decided to publish them. I must try to persuade them to reverse their decision — even though I, unlike Springer and its reviewers — have not read them myself!” In other words, Nick knew himself to be performing a very rare and possibly unprecedented third-party intervention in the publishing process of Springer.
It is not particularly rare, but I agree that Nick would have probably assumed that the editors had at least looked at the papers.
And he knew himself to be performing it regarding papers he had not read, some of which were by authors whose writing and scientific background he was not familiar with. And his motivation was to prevent a group of ID-friendly people from getting a scientific publication with Springer, *simply because they were ID-friendly*.
Almost certainly he assumed that they would be rejected if they were more thorougly reviewed, so, yes. I simply do not believe that Springer would do thorough review job on the papers, then pull the book simply because a grad student told them he didn't approve of the authors. If they did, then Springer are most certainly to blame, not Nick, who is as entitled as any of us in a free society to say what they like to the editors of journals.
So, Elizabeth, *you* have some explaining to do. Did you know, when you wrote what you wrote, that Springer had read the articles? Or did you at least strongly suspect that Springer had read the articles? If either of these is the case, then you were dishonest in your reply which implied that you thought Springer hadn’t. And on the other hand, if you really believed what you wrote when you wrote it, if you really thought that Springer accepted the conference papers without reading them, why didn’t it strike you as odd that Springer would do such a thing, given your opinion of Springer as a top-notch scientific publishing house?
I don't actually think they are a "top-notch scientific publishing house", and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they'd done a sloppy job of reviewing. So to answer your question, no, I didn't know that Springer had done a review already, but no, it didn't strike me as odd that when alerted by a number of scientists to the possibility that there might be some substandard papers in there (having seen the author list and the title) that someone might have thought "yikes - maybe we should have done this more thoroughly". But without knowing who did the original reviews, or what the procedure was, I don't know. I do think Springer is greatly at fault.
Didn’t you question the report — probably originating from Matzke himself, if you actually heard any such report — that Springer had agreed to publish something it hadn’t read? Why would you uncritically accept, without investigating, such an implausible claim?
Because, as I say, sometimes publication of conference proceedings is agreed prior to a conference, and the peer-review process is often cursory, especially if the papers have already been reviewed by the conference convenors,and they are well-respected reviewers.
Since you seem to be able to get in touch with Matzke, I would suggest you get in touch with him now, to determine if he has been fibbing or concealing some information in this matter.
I am not in personal contact with Matzke. I merely posted my earlier questions in his thread at Panda's Thumb, and cut and pasted the response back here.
I would like you to ask him: 1. Did he in fact honestly believe that Springer had accepted the papers without actually reading them? 2. If so, why did he believe this? 3. If he thought they *had* read them, why did he think they still needed his advice? Did he think this publishing house, one very competent by his own judgment, needed his correction? 4. Did he have any qualms at all about advising a publishing house not to publish papers he had not read, at least some of which were by authors about whom he knew nothing? 5. Did Nick, in his communication with Springer, make any direct *or veiled* threats of leading a boycott of the book if they went ahead with publication? 6. Did Nick do anything at Panda’s Thumb, or anywhere else, to encourage anyone to boycott the book if it were published? 7. Did others, because of Nick’s action, threaten any boycott of the book if it were published? Elizabeth, I look forward to hearing back from you, and indirectly from Nick, on this matter.
As I say, I am not in personal contact with Nick. I guess I could find out his email, but as the questions are yours, it would probably come better from you. But I will if you like.
It now looks as if there some dishonesty in what you and/or Nick have been saying here. If you have the integrity you purport to have, you will want to clear the air, and show that neither Nick’s answer nor your defense of Nick’s actions and words implies any concealment of knowledge or improper manipulation of people or situations.
The reason I commented on this thread was that it seemed ridiculous to me that Nick would approve of book-burning and censorship just because he had written to Springer to alert them to the ID nature of a forthcoming conference proceedings book that they had just advertised. I did not follow the affair closely at the time, but I did note that the ad had disappeared from the Springer website, and there was an article on it in the Guardian website. My point is simply that there is a difference between suppressing dissent and rejecting papers that do not reach the standard for a peer-review science journal. But I will write to Matzke if you like and put your questions to him (if I can find his contact details online).Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply