Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nick Matzke – Book Burner?

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
scordova @ 50: Agreed. I've never much understood the hate Lizzie gets here. She doesn't agree no matter the argument or evidence. So what? The same goes for those of us at the other end of the spectrum. She's always respectful, patient and seems to genuinely try to understand her opponent. Beyond that, the lady's a dame. For that alone she should be shown far more respect than has been the case.lpadron
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST
keiths, I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly why anyone should consider Darwinism to be scientific since it has no demarcation criteria to make it scientific. Or is blatant hypocrisy just something we are suppose to overlook in the case of Darwinists? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nick-matzke-book-burner/#comment-460387 If you get passed that minor hurdle, then perhaps you can advance to the point of you may address Dr. Sewell properly instead of like the spoiled know nothing that you are.bornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PST
No keiths, what we are saying is that there isn't any evidence that blind and undirected chemical processes can do much of anything and adding energy isn't going to help. And you saying something is "bad science" means as much as Mickey Mouse saying it...Joe
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PST
Granville, What you're missing is that if the compensation argument were invalid, as you claim, then any local decrease in entropy (including in plants) would be a violation of the second law. It's not, obviously. The influx of solar energy (and the outflow of waste heat, which is actually more important) explain why plants do not violate the second law. But that also explains why the appearance of spaceships and computers doesn't violate the second law. Sure, you think the appearance of spaceships and computers is improbable; but that is not the same thing as saying that their appearance violates the second law. You're really just arguing that evolution is improbable, like every other ID proponent. It has nothing to do with the second law.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PST
So the folly of the geocentric scientists from the universities had nothing to do with Galileo's downfall. Or is that simple truth too much for Alan to grasp?Joe
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PST
You think it is perfectly acceptable to use quotations you know to be spurious to make a point.
I know no such thing. Neither you nor I are privy to what Galileo might hve muttered under his breath. The underlying truth is the folly of the Catholic church in trying to prevent the spread of simple truths that anyone can verify for themselves. ID has that opportunity, to promulgate it's essential truth, should there actually be any essential truth in among the propaganda./Alan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PST
Granville,
I was really just trying to defend the Cornell proceedings, didn’t want to get drawn into defending my article, but was forced to by some personal insults from KEITHS.
I said that your paper was bad science. Do you consider that a "personal insult"? Do you believe that your paper should be exempt from criticism? The content of your paper is relevant to the issue, which is whether the BI symposium was a serious scientific conference. I say no. They accepted your paper, and your paper is not serious science.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PST
WJM @ 79. Just so. As Alan and Liz are demonstrating in this combox, "shameless" does not even begin to cover it.Barry Arrington
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PST
Alan: “I never claimed he did.” You think it is perfectly acceptable to use quotations you know to be spurious to make a point. Well alright then.Barry Arrington
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PST
I never claimed he did. I said “is supposed to have muttered”, Barry. Do keep up! Anyway, how are you so certain he didn’t say something along those lines quietly when allowed to go home? Do you think the Earth is at the centre of the Universe? If so, why?
Yeah, Barry, you forget that for Darwinists, bare possibility is enough to support whatever they say or believe.William J Murray
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST
Barry:
The problem with Alan’s quote is that Galileo never said any such thing...
I never claimed he did. I said "is supposed to have muttered", Barry. Do keep up! Anyway, how are you so certain he didn't say something along those lines quietly when allowed to go home? Do you think the Earth is at the centre of the Universe? If so, why?Alan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST
JoeG was dealing with many buttwipes, including the blog’s owner. And buttwipes are full of guano. Alan Fox:
QED
BTDTJoe
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PST
Granville,
My statement was that if you believe (as you apparently do) that the influx of solar energy makes it NOT extremely improbable that computers and the Internet would arise on a barren planet, then you do NOT have to conclude that the basic principle behind the second law has been violated here. So why would you have a problem with that statement?
I didn't dispute that statement. Here's what I actually wrote:
In the paper, you claim that the compensation argument is invalid and that spaceships, computers and the Internet are evidence that “at least the basic principle behind the second law has in fact been violated here.” That is so ridiculous, so unsupportable and so bizarre that it would get you laughed out of any reputable physics conference in the world.
That's why I laughed when I read this from you:
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PST
The problem with Alan's quote is that Galileo never said any such thing, while "Arbeit macht frei" was certainly posted over the gate at Auschwitz. And, no, the allegations of fascist tactics are not spurious. My posts provide more than adequate support. The fact that Alan’s ideological blinders make him unable to see the evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist.Barry Arrington
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PST
Well DiEb to further tarnish your delicate sensibilities as to what should be associated with the Orwellian world of Darwinian Gestapo tactics and what should not be,
Did Hitler Use the Term "Evolution" in Mein Kampf? - Richard Weikart August 27, 2012 Excerpt: In sum, my translation of "Entwicklung" as "evolution" agrees with the usage of most translators of Mein Kampf. Richards's claim that I am playing a "sly trick" falls to the ground. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/did_hitler_use063571.html From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A Revealing The "Survival of The Fittest" Origins - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGq-MbmL5c0 Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html How Evolutionary Ethics Influenced Hitler and Why It Matters - Richard Weikart: - January 2012 http://www.credomag.com/2012/01/05/how-evolutionary-ethics-influenced-hitler-and-why-it-matters/
bornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST
Sal I know you has internet skillz! For the lazy: "Arbeit macht frei" was the motto that was inscribed over the entrance of several German concentration camps; including Dachau and Auschwitz. Translates roughly as "Work makes you free". Galileo is supposed to have muttered "and yet it moves" after agreeing to recant on heliocentricity under threat of torture.Alan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST
If you guys want to say things in foreign languages to get across a saying, it would help if an English translation were provided for those of us less enlightened. I was referring to Barry Arrington's essay Will Our Darwinist Friends Be Telling Us Next That “Arbeit Macht Frei”? Take a look at the wiki article to see the implications of this seemingly innocent sentence...DiEb
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PST
As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them.
I didn't ask if Nick had a "right" to write to Springer (which of course he does, nobody disagrees with that), oh Liz of the deceptive obfuscation techniques, I asked if Nick had a sound reason to warn Springer about the content of papers he had not read. Of course, he had no such sound reason; Nick was engaged in ideological intimidation and thuggery.
And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference.
Did Nick attend the conference? How would Nick be able to alert anyone as to the "nature" of a conference he did not attend?William J Murray
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PST
DiEb: “Arbeit macht frei”?
and
Alan Fox Eppur si muove!
If you guys want to say things in foreign languages to get across a saying, it would help if an English translation were provided for those of us less enlightened. I could start saying things in my native language of Tagalog, but then few would understand unless I use Tagalog words imported into American English from Tagalog like: "Boondock" and "Cooties" and "yo-yo" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Tagalog_originscordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST
Alan,
I like that typo.
Double-L Allan and I were just discussing fortuitous typos at TSZ.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST
William:
Does Liz think that Nick, not having even read the papers, has a sound reason to reach out to the editorial board and “warn” them about publishing work he hasn’t even read?
As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them. And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference. As I said, I would defend an ID person who did the same about a set of proceedings for a conference they also considered inappropriate for a scientific imprint. And I would expect Springer to examine the claim, and make their judgement. I've written to journals myself when I've thought that a paper did not meet the rigor expected of that journal. I did it about a paper by Joseph Bozorgmehr. Subsequently he had a paper accepted for publication by BIOcomplexity. They withdrew their offer, I understand, after they discovered (here at UD) that he had posted holocaust denial posts at Talk Rational. To be honest, I think that is less defensible than withdrawing a paper because the editors subsequently discovered it has been inadequately reviewed, but I could understand it. No journal or imprint is obliged to publish material whose content they don't endorse. Fortunately in the west the press is not censored and there are plenty of ways to get your views published, even more so now that the internet and search engines are so powerful. If people have a complaint, it should be to Springer, not Matzke. They are the ones who need to defend their decision.Elizabeth B Liddle
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PST
Alan Fox:
@ Voice-in-the-ceiling I have a pathological aversion to voices-in-the-ceiling!!!
It isn't pathological.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PST
"Arbeit macht frei"? Really? Well, I expect KairosFocus to write an opinion piece, strongly condemning such spurious allegations of nazism! Or is his anger much more selectively attributed?DiEb
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST
I like that typo. But all good ideas transcend the strategies to contain them.Alan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PST
William, You are confusing truth and strategy. God ideas transcend the strategies to contain them.Alan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PST
Barry is attempting to evoke a knee-jerk response in his readers. His OP doesn't make sense, even as a pure hypothetical. Read his "thought experiment" again:
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.”
It's a silly thought experiment and an equivocation on the word "publication". To publish something is to make it available to the public (note the similarity in those two words). If it really were "too late to stop publication" by Springer, as the OP says, then Nick's response would presumably be "Why on earth did you idiots soak all the printed copies in gasoline if you've decided to go ahead with publication anyway?" Having been soaked in gasoline by some idiot for no reason, those copies aren't going out to the public. They've already been destroyed. What happens to them afterward is completely irrelevant to the issue of censorship. Nick opposed publication by Springer or any reputable scientific publisher. Equating that with book burning is ridiculous. As I said to Granville:
Publication is fine. The problem is the dishonest attempt to pass the conference off as serious science sponsored by a prestigious university and published by a reputable scientific publisher.
keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PST
Does Matzke think that the editorial board at Springer isn't sufficient to review submissions and make a sound judgement on the papers? Does Liz think that Nick, not having even read the papers, has a sound reason to reach out to the editorial board and "warn" them about publishing work he hasn't even read? What BS. This is nothing more than intimidation (thuggery) on Nick's part, and deceptive smoke-blowing or useful idiocy on Liz's part.William J Murray
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PST
Yes, indeed. And it does. And it is. I've been plugging it myself for a while :)Elizabeth B Liddle
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PST
Where's Zachriel when you need him Eppur si muove!Alan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PST
hasAlan Fox
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
1 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply