6 ms·

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

by yters 6y ago

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.
      - eesmith 6y ago
        "They argue for YEC not for religious reasons, but for honest intellectual reasons." Who? And what are their arguments? And how have their arguments not been given a fair hearing and found lacking? (See http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html for a list of common creationist arguments and their rebuttal.) That's what I mean by a concrete example.
        yters 6y ago
        John Sanford is one I know of. He is inventor of the gene gun and his work on population genetics convinced him that the genome must be devolving, something he called genetic entropy. This led him to reject atheism and adopt YEC.
        eesmith 6y ago
        As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford notes: > This idea is unsupported by available evidence. In laboratory experiments, viruses saturated with mutations do not go extinct.[10] Sanford also misuses Kimura's mutation distribution; Kimura excludes beneficial mutations because they would have too large an effect, not an insignificant one.[11] Sanford has refused to acknowledge this problem, even after being directly confronted with Kimura's own words.[12] Further, Sanford's assertion that there are virtually no selectable beneficial mutations is contradicted by examples of exactly that, such as lactase persistence in humans,[13] or tetherin antagonism in HIV-1 group M Vpu.[14]

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

by 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.

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.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      "They argue for YEC not for religious reasons, but for honest intellectual reasons." Who? And what are their arguments? And how have their arguments not been given a fair hearing and found lacking? (See http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html for a list of common creationist arguments and their rebuttal.) That's what I mean by a concrete example.
      - yters 6y ago
        John Sanford is one I know of. He is inventor of the gene gun and his work on population genetics convinced him that the genome must be devolving, something he called genetic entropy. This led him to reject atheism and adopt YEC.
        eesmith 6y ago
        As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford notes: > This idea is unsupported by available evidence. In laboratory experiments, viruses saturated with mutations do not go extinct.[10] Sanford also misuses Kimura's mutation distribution; Kimura excludes beneficial mutations because they would have too large an effect, not an insignificant one.[11] Sanford has refused to acknowledge this problem, even after being directly confronted with Kimura's own words.[12] Further, Sanford's assertion that there are virtually no selectable beneficial mutations is contradicted by examples of exactly that, such as lactase persistence in humans,[13] or tetherin antagonism in HIV-1 group M Vpu.[14]