|
Author
|
Topic: ID and Peer Review
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 03. July 2003 12:59
Paul:
quote:
This is simply a matter of intellectual symmetry. If evidence can be brought to bear against a theory, evidence can also support that theory.
Except of course when said theory is based on an eliminative approach for instance. And of course the mere possibility of symmetry does of course not guarantee that evidence that supports a theory exists.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 03. July 2003 14:12
Nelson wrote:
quote:
We already have some results by Behe that show us that ID is being rejected without even looking at the substantial content of the presented works.
In
Correspondence with Science Journals Behe's submissions were rejected with the advice "Let us speak about it again in 1000 years."
Just for the record, Behe's article was published in "Biology and Philosophy" in 2001, volume 16, pages 683-707. I guess the Discovery Institute hasn't had time to update the web page you cite.
That issue also features an article by John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry called "The advantages of theft over toil: The design inference and arguing from ignorance"
(Volume 16, pp 711-724).
AndyG
[ 03. July 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: andyg ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 03. July 2003 14:17
Mike,
I wouldn't want to offer support to the opinions voiced by Holliday. I think a negative argument is equally difficult to sustain whoever makes it.
In this case, it would seem that the "Wheel of life" thread has sparked some debate over whether Holliday's claim is in fact correct
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 03. July 2003 16:27
Paul Nelson writ:
quote:
This is simply a matter of intellectual symmetry. If evidence can be brought to bear against a theory, evidence can also support that theory. I agree with Fish: if IDers "adopt a similarly creative approach (and have something to say), then 'ID friendly' as well as 'ID hostile' science will be published in peer review journals." We just need a few ballsy editors and a handful of creative ID scientists and philosophers.
I would be interested to learn from Paul or Bill how many ID research papers they are aware of that have been written, submitted and then rejected by peer-reviewed journals. By this, I don't mean papers that could be construed as being supportive of ID, but ones that come right out and discuss ID and the evidence for it in the paper.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
Paul A. Nelson
Member
Member # 26
|
posted 03. July 2003 18:27
Andy asked:
quote:
I would be interested to learn from Paul or Bill how many ID research papers they are aware of that have been written, submitted and then rejected by peer-reviewed journals. By this, I don't mean papers that could be construed as being supportive of ID, but ones that come right out and discuss ID and the evidence for it in the paper.
I observed first-hand the editorial process (from initial editorial contact to ultimate rejection) for one such case, involving a well-known design theorist, where an explicitly ID paper was rejected from a prominent evolutionary biology journal for philosophical reasons. Interestingly, the journal in question had a long history of publishing anti-design remarks by one of its editors (now deceased).
Far more common, however, are cases where the author soft-peddles the design implications of his paper to get it through peer review. Example: I know of two cases (involving the Journal of Theoretical Biology) where the authors in question told me personally that they had stepped back from spelling out the full consequences of their arguments because they knew that to do so would kill any chances for publication. I also have a good friend at a major research institution who regularly is persecuted for his dissent from neo-Darwinism (and this includes his publications and public speaking). Any design theorist has a collection of such unhappy stories.
If you want more details, including names, journal titles, editors, et cetera, talk to me in Boston over a beer. That kind of career-threatening detail doesn't belong on a public forum like this.
Getting roughed up is part of the science game, and everyone has peer review complaints. What irks me is the editorial double standard at many journals. Attack design, you're in. Advocate design: here, jump through this nano-scale hoop. Oh, sorry -- you're a macro-scale metazoan. Better luck next time.
[ 03. July 2003, 18:29: Message edited by: Paul A. Nelson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 03. July 2003 21:56
quote:
Getting roughed up is part of the science game, and everyone has peer review complaints. What irks me is the editorial double standard at many journals. Attack design, you're in. Advocate design: here, jump through this nano-scale hoop. Oh, sorry -- you're a macro-scale metazoan. Better luck next time.
What you just described applies to papers in general. Stick with the norm, or fiddle around with it a little - you're in. Come up with something startlingly original, and you will have more hoops to jump through. That happens all the time. I actually think that's a good thing in moderation. Cold fusion springs to mind.....
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 04. July 2003 01:34
Mike Gene wrote quote:
In fact, the Lenski article is interesting from this perspective. Lenski gets something published in Nature. What does he find? "Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured." Er, didn't Darwin make that argument over 100 years ago? Were any evolutionary biologists shocked by this novel and interesting finding?
Darwin made an argument; Lenski, et al., provided detailed data.
What strikes me as important and interesting (and publication-worthy) about the Lenski, et al., paper is the data - the lineages and the evolved programs. The Avida platform allows tracing every single step of the evolutionary process from zero-function replicators to an array of evolved assembly language programs that perform the complex function. Several very interesting and (in one case, at least) counter-intuitive findings are embedded in those data. I'll identify just two.
First, many of the lineages that evolved to perform the complex function showed backing and filling - retreats in fitness - rather than monotonically increasing fitness. That's a nice demonstration of the ability of evolution to deke and juke around on fitness landscapes, finding non-obvious pathways in the process.
Second, while five "nand" operations are necessary to perform the EQU function, at least one of the evolved programs (Run 109) 'figured out' how to do it using just three nand instructions that were indispensable to the program by the knockout criterion, though it actually had nine total nand instructions in its program. Since one cannot perform EQU with just three nands, that program either evolved to somehow use one or two of the (knockout-critical) nand instructions multiple times, or it evolved redundant subsequences of instructions including some of the other nands that had the effect of defending the program against the loss of any one of the 'superfluous' six nands by knockout. (I have not worked my way through that program's operation step by step to see which it is.) That's a very interesting outcome, whichever way that program performs the complex function.
The value in a research paper is often (always?) not merely in the general conclusion ("Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured.") but also in the details of the methodology and data. That's why published research papers are so nice: The dreaded peer review process ensures that they have Methods sections and Results sections and (where appropriate) Supplementary Information that are publicly available so readers can make their own evaluations and interpretations and analyses, rather than having only vague and allusive (and elusive) mentions made en passant.
RBH
Added in edit: After I posted this, I noticed that Mike Gene's posting (which would have immediately preceded this one) from which I took the quotation had disappeared, apparently deleted by Mike Gene. Nevertheless, I'll leave this posted since it makes a thread-relevant point.
[ 04. July 2003, 01:49: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 04. July 2003 04:40
Although I am sure individual IDers are persecuted unfairly, it is difficult to feel collectively sorry for you because you collectively have been responsible for politicising the area. The Wedge after all was not invented by evolutionary biologists.
I think that PCID should rather be called "Journal of Crank Science". That way there is no political overtone. Of course everyone would be laughing, but when an obscure Swiss patent clerk publishes 3 epoch making papers in the journal in one year, we will be laughing on the back of our faces (and the name will come to have a certain dignified ring to it).
We all, like Darwin, soft peddle on the implications of our results, often in order to get the manuscripts past reviewers. And because this prevents us from going too far beyond what can actually be deduced from the evidence presented, it improves the papers. And, of course, it doesnt prevent us from hard peddling on the conclusions elsewhere.
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 04. July 2003 05:35
Needless to say, the work was published.
Referee 1
The submitted work on XXXXXXXX, by XXXXXX and his colleagues, has direct parallels to work that has been conducted on many XXXXXXX showing that there is extensive XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, which reflect patterns of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX prior to the Age of Exploration. It is basically a knock-off of previous work on other XXXXXXXXXX, and the authors know it. For example, the finding for XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXx XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX published some dozen years ago. The phenomenon also has been reported in other major XXXXXXXXXXX such as XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. If Science publishes the work, it will be either because the reviewers don't know the literature, the work sounds "neat", or because the journal feels a need to publish
work from European authors to support circulation. None of these are compelling scientific reasons.
Referee 2
The paper contains novel data with novel and state-of-the-art analytical approaches to address interesting questions in XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX of this XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX and suggest a novel approach to the study of XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX itself. I strongly recommend the paper for publication. It will be a model study not only in XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, but in XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in general as the authors tackle some interesting and common difficulties in XXXXXXXXXXXX data analysis with a novel and sound statistical approach.
[ 04. July 2003, 05:40: Message edited by: fish ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 04. July 2003 07:20
I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly, but the impression that you leave me is that anyone associated with ID is associated with the "Wedge." Is this not like saying that every German was a Nazi?
Is it ID that is the culprit or is it the use of ID for political and social purposes that is the culprit? I and others find it quite disheartening that there are people out there who allow for no distinction between the "Wedge" and ID. If you are interested in ID then you endorse the Wedge (the larger conspiracy). Period.
It seems that some think that meeting the following two criteria in the same person is a nomological impossibility:
1. You are a person that finds ID intellectually stimulating and enjoyable, and think it worthy of consideration (though not convinced that it will pan out as true)
2. You are a person who has no interest whatsoever in the "Wedge"
Anyway, I'll keep your idea about renaming PCID in mind. It sounds like a good idea.
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 04. July 2003 07:38
Micah,
quote:
Is it ID that is the culprit or is it the use of ID for political and social purposes that is the culprit?
Clearly the latter. I have said previously that I do not simply believe in the Wicked Witch of the West.
What I was trying to say was that Paul Nelson should (and probably does) recognize that people in the ID movement do have a large part of the responsibility for the political problems that he and his friends are having.
Tipler's piece may be seen as a justification for having a new journal with relaxed peer review criteria (which I would agree with - let everyone have their day). It can also, quite legitimately given its context, be read as a political piece, sympethising with the plight of intelligent design, given hostility of the pygmies in mainstream science.
Given that "Design" has, alas, been politicised to the extent it has, you probably would be better off with a different name.
[ 04. July 2003, 08:03: Message edited by: fish ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 04. July 2003 08:22
Micah:
ignoring the Wedge would be far easier if it weren't such a, in fact the centerpiece of ID's public strategy. So far, all of the Wedge's political and "educational" steps are on schedule and its PR engines humming. The only thing from the Wedge that never materialized is the science, and some leading ID "theorists" came out saying that was not that important after all. If we teach ID in kindergarten, apparently, we'll grow a new crop of future ID scientists, and ID science will materialize with them.
If ID supporters want the Wedge to be ignored, and to be judged just by the strength of their arguments, they should stop participating in Wedge-associated events and campaigns, ask the DI to stop Wedge activities or leave it altogether, disown any politically expedient association with YEC and fundamentalist groups that have all but the scientific interest of ID in mind, and start acting like scientists, instead of activists.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 04. July 2003 14:02
Micah: I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly, but the impression that you leave me is that anyone associated with ID is associated with the "Wedge." Is this not like saying that every German was a Nazi?
I would not make the argument that everyone associated with ID is associated with the Wedge but it is clear that the major proponents of ID are in fact part of the Wedge strategy. The wedge strategy is one of the reasons why ID is in an interesting predicament, namely that it is promoting an alternative as scientific to policy makers when in fact it has failed so far to propose a scientific alternative or even a solid scientific foundation.
Mike Gene wondered why so many people see ID as religiously motivated. The simple answer is that the evidence suggests this to be the case. Blame the Wedge strategy document... And we see continued efforts to make the deadlines as set out in the document. Heck the latest videos are promoted all over the Web by mostly religious organizations.
But where is the science?
Paul Nelson comments on some (inside) cases of ID papers being submitted to and rejected by peer reviewed journals. Without more detail these stories will remain irrelevant since it will be hard to determine if it was the quality of the paper or the argument of the paper that led to ultimate rejection.
Mike Gene; Yet ID requires “extraordinary evidence”, especially given the fact that 91% of the scientific community equates ID with religion (a stereotype).
A stereotype perhaps, but imho quite an accurate one in 91% of the cases. Need I name some examples ? "Wedge strategy", "Icons of evolution", "Promoting the teaching of ID in public schools". Combine this with the lack of any serious ID research even at a theoretical level ID research is protected from serious criticism and discussion, and you may understand why equating ID with religion is more than a stereotype.
(See for instance here)
IMHO of course
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 04. July 2003 14:22
And it is not at all clear that there is any published-in-hard-copy ID material out there that is independent from the DI/wedge.
Any scientist who hears about ID and thinks "Hmm, I wonder if there's anything to this" and types "intelligent design" into google (today) will find:
1. ID network page on science standards in Ohio etc.
2. ARN, current items
- a) Wedge update
- b) The Rhetoric of Charles Darwin Interview with Professor John Angus Campbell.
- c) Panel Discussion on the Theory of Evolution With Michael Ruse, Bruce Tiffney, and Jonathan Wells (video ad)
- d) Law, Darwinism, and Public Education book ad
- e) "The Latest Book from Phillip E. Johnson: The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate"
The first google hit on an amazon.com link is to:
Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology
Other top 10 links include origins.org (apologetic), IDURC (ARN), IDEA club (apologetic), www.intelligentdesign.org (explicitly creationist).
The other 2 links are to a t.o. FAQ on the anthropic principle and the AMNH debate (featuring Behe, Dembski, and Wells).
I went through the first 15 pages of hits without seeing Mike Gene's idthink.net.
If said scientist had heard about the DI and goes to the C(R)SC webpage, the current news & articles are:
quote:
Unlocking the Mystery of Life to Air in Miami, Cleveland, & New York City
By: Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute
June 20, 2003
Blinded by Science
By: Wesley J. Smith
National Review
June 16, 2003
www.s-u-i-c-i-d-e.com: Suicide Advocacy Goes Online
By: Wesley J. Smith
National Review Online
June 12, 2003
Science on TV Evolves: Intelligent Design Hits Prime Time
By: Charles Colson
BreakPoint.org
June 9, 2003
True Enough: Bill McKibben's Useful Assault on the Unfettered Biogenetic Project
By: Wesley J. Smith
Weekly Standard
June 9, 2003
Dying Cause: Assisted Suicide Is Losing Support
By: Wesley J. Smith
National Review Online
May 20, 2003
And the featured articles are:
quote:
Teach the Controversy
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Cincinnati Enquirer
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
By: Michael J. Behe
Cosmic Pursuit
Science & Design
By: William Dembski
First Things
DNA and Other Designs
By: Stephen C. Meyer
First Things
Survival of the Fakest (PDF)
By: Jonathan Wells
American Spectator
Even on a very generous interpretation the "non-Wedge-ish" to "Wedge-ish" ratio is very low, ~10% or so.
OTOH, a google search on "evolution" brings up (surprisingly good, in my view)
1. PBS evolution series
2. UC Museum of Paleontology evolution wing
(3. Linux/UNIX page)
4. Evolution (the journal)
5-6. Harvard Evolution page
(7. Movie-related page)
8. Journal: Development Genes and Evolution
9. Journal of Molecular Evolution
10. evolution.com (Evolution Robotics, inc.)
The content-to-ideology ratio here seems pretty high.
PS: There is one thing that might get a scientist's interest: funding offer:
quote:
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/TopQuestions/getInvolved.html
If you are a scholar or scientist who is doing cutting edge research and writing in the theory of intelligent design, apply for a research fellowship (awarded in the spring of each year).
If you are a student, consider a career that applies the theory of intelligent design to a specific discipline. Then apply for a research fellowship.
[ 04. July 2003, 14:27: Message edited by: yersinia ]
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 04. July 2003 14:28
If 91% of scientists associate ID with religion, is this a "sterotype" if in fact 90+ percent of ID material does the same?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
