2 ms·

My comment gave the reasons for why not, so I don't know what more you want. And you didn't answer my questions: Where should a YEC get to publish their papers

My comment gave the reasons for why not, so I don't know what more you want. And you didn't answer my questions: Where should a YEC get to publish their papers? If the paper isn't accepted (because it's contrary to all evidence and has no strong evidence to support it), do you call that decision "censorship"? In 100 years do you expect that we might discover the YECs are right? Experience with YECs, flat-earthers, and the like show that it's far more than "a smidgen of an expert's time". As you yourself pointed out, it requires learning a different set of rhetorical skills than are needed for a scientific paper. And that takes a lot of time. (And it seems you have no experience in dealing with crackpots to know this.) A scientist who enters a "debate" with a creationist, but who is not trained in the specific rhetorical techniques (eg. "Gish gallop", as another commenter pointed out) is going to get trounced - because scientists aren't trained in dealing with charlatans, and rhetorical style can trump competence. As a result, charlatans gain fame for being able to out-debate a scientist. I'll stress this point, the point of these crackpot publications and "debates" is NOT to advance science but to establish credentials as being a viable alternative. So, will you answer my questions now?

yters 6y ago
If a YEC can assemble a good argument that fits the journal's standards, they should be able to publish. Seems simple.
- eesmith 6y ago
  It appears you, like me, disagree with twblalock's broad statement "Science is better served when such papers are published, and then are debunked using scientific standards of inquiry." and have the position more like "only good arguments warrant publication". I'm perfectly fine with that latter viewpoint and don't see where we have any disagreement.
  - yters 6y ago
    Perhaps, although I see people claim the latter when it seems they are more rejecting a position or conclusion merely because they already disagree with it, or are worried about implications of the argument.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      It's hard to know what you mean without a concrete example. twblalock's argument appears to be that editors are obligated to publish all pseudoscience dreck in order to refute it. Now, there are plenty of pseudoscientific beliefs which are widely held, but are clearly not backed by evidence. Consider Hollow Earth theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth - which is outright untenable; there is no evidence in favor of it and plenty of evidence against it. Why should I worry about implications of a Hollow Earth when there are so many other more interesting things to worry about? Going back to pjc50's comment, I am convinced by the evidence that 'bell curve arguments about some races being less intellectually capable than others' are bunkum. To start with, the genetic evidence over the last decades shows that the human-constructed concept we call "race" has no real biological basis. (Racial classifications is another pseudoscience. I linked to a video with more discussion about the flaws in the Bell Curve book.) The evidence is so overwhelming that, like the evidence against YEC or Hollow Earth theory, it's not worth my time to engage in the topic, much less worth my time to develop the specific rhetorical skills to engage charlatans, frauds, grifters, and true-believers at their game. There are certainly some who do that, and I commend them for fighting the good fight. But when a YEC proponent presents a tired argument like "If Human Beings Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are There Still Monkeys?" or "Evolution Is Only A Theory" for the n-th million-th time - I don't have the patience. And neither do science journal editors, who use their freedom of association to decide to not publish a given paper. I'll now focus on the word "censorship". You must be aware that supporters of pseudoscientific beliefs have all manner of ways to publish their works, hold meetings, get on TV shows, build museums, and more. So by "censor" you are not meaning censorship in any of its usual senses. I think you mean something more like "there's an obligation to let the honorable opposition speak, in order that truth may ring out." But a YEC isn't there for the scientific truth but rather wants to be treated as honorable (even though it isn't!) in order to influence policy goals in favor of a certain religious viewpoint. I believe by jumping right to "censorship" instead of starting with "maybe it doesn't actually have merit", you end up supporting bad science.
      - yters 6y ago
        I think there exist objective standards of good argumentation, and any viewpoint that makes an honest attempt to abide by said standards should get a fair hearing, despite what people may think about the conclusion and consequences. Much of today's status quo exists precisely due to that liberty, so for the status quo to turn around and deny it to others they dislike is extremely hypocritical. As a concrete example, let's stick with YEC. There are very successful scientists with credentials from top institutions that believe the evidence supports the YEC position. They argue for YEC not for religious reasons, but for honest intellectual reasons. It is worth giving such arguments a fair hearing, regardless of whether they are flawed.

yters 6y ago

If a YEC can assemble a good argument that fits the journal's standards, they should be able to publish. Seems simple.

eesmith 6y ago
It appears you, like me, disagree with twblalock's broad statement "Science is better served when such papers are published, and then are debunked using scientific standards of inquiry." and have the position more like "only good arguments warrant publication". I'm perfectly fine with that latter viewpoint and don't see where we have any disagreement.
- yters 6y ago
  Perhaps, although I see people claim the latter when it seems they are more rejecting a position or conclusion merely because they already disagree with it, or are worried about implications of the argument.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    It's hard to know what you mean without a concrete example. twblalock's argument appears to be that editors are obligated to publish all pseudoscience dreck in order to refute it. Now, there are plenty of pseudoscientific beliefs which are widely held, but are clearly not backed by evidence. Consider Hollow Earth theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth - which is outright untenable; there is no evidence in favor of it and plenty of evidence against it. Why should I worry about implications of a Hollow Earth when there are so many other more interesting things to worry about? Going back to pjc50's comment, I am convinced by the evidence that 'bell curve arguments about some races being less intellectually capable than others' are bunkum. To start with, the genetic evidence over the last decades shows that the human-constructed concept we call "race" has no real biological basis. (Racial classifications is another pseudoscience. I linked to a video with more discussion about the flaws in the Bell Curve book.) The evidence is so overwhelming that, like the evidence against YEC or Hollow Earth theory, it's not worth my time to engage in the topic, much less worth my time to develop the specific rhetorical skills to engage charlatans, frauds, grifters, and true-believers at their game. There are certainly some who do that, and I commend them for fighting the good fight. But when a YEC proponent presents a tired argument like "If Human Beings Evolved From Monkeys Then Why Are There Still Monkeys?" or "Evolution Is Only A Theory" for the n-th million-th time - I don't have the patience. And neither do science journal editors, who use their freedom of association to decide to not publish a given paper. I'll now focus on the word "censorship". You must be aware that supporters of pseudoscientific beliefs have all manner of ways to publish their works, hold meetings, get on TV shows, build museums, and more. So by "censor" you are not meaning censorship in any of its usual senses. I think you mean something more like "there's an obligation to let the honorable opposition speak, in order that truth may ring out." But a YEC isn't there for the scientific truth but rather wants to be treated as honorable (even though it isn't!) in order to influence policy goals in favor of a certain religious viewpoint. I believe by jumping right to "censorship" instead of starting with "maybe it doesn't actually have merit", you end up supporting bad science.
    - yters 6y ago
      I think there exist objective standards of good argumentation, and any viewpoint that makes an honest attempt to abide by said standards should get a fair hearing, despite what people may think about the conclusion and consequences. Much of today's status quo exists precisely due to that liberty, so for the status quo to turn around and deny it to others they dislike is extremely hypocritical. As a concrete example, let's stick with YEC. There are very successful scientists with credentials from top institutions that believe the evidence supports the YEC position. They argue for YEC not for religious reasons, but for honest intellectual reasons. It is worth giving such arguments a fair hearing, regardless of whether they are flawed.