Re: Sternberg and Galileo: was My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

From: Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Thu Mar 02 2006 - 15:11:41 EST

Thank you, Ted. Now that you spell it out, I see that you can draw an
analogy in some sense between the Sternberg and Galileo affairs. But it
is a fine, rather than a robust, analogy. I would think that most
readers of your Dover trial article (necessarily brief) would not
appreciate your fine point. Rather, they will probably gain the
impression that you have swallowed the DI spin on this matter.
 On your general point point about editorial judgement, I agree with you
-- but the editor of a society journal (as distinct from the editor of a
commercial journal, who has more freedom) should have the permission of
his editorial board to widen the scope of the journal. The editor of a
society journal is acting as an agent of the society and consequently
has obligations to that society.
Yes, we can agree to disagree on the Sternberg affair.
Don

Ted Davis wrote:

>Most readers probably agree with you, Don. I don't.
>
>In a rare exception to my rule that "I don't do blogs," I went onto
>pandasthumb when Sternberg got blindsided and made the very comparison
>repeated in my article. Galileo went through the censors and published his
>book, with its offending passage in the mouth of Simplicio (for which
>incidentally he was to blame). After the book came out, it hit the fan and
>the pope ruined the censors (along with Galileo). The parallel I see is in
>the action of the powers that be, after an article has gone through the
>censors, to ruin the censors for not excising the author's views. There is
>a point, IMO, to the complaint that ID is not science b/c editors won't give
>it a chance to b/c science. Just as there is a point, IMO, to the defense
>that editors need to exert editorial judgement. Perfection in this is
>elusive, but surely an editor ought to be allowed to publish the rare piece
>asking questions in a responsible way about fundamental assumptions?
>
>I imagine we still disagree, Don, and I'm fine with that.
>
>Good day,
>
>ted
>
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 2 15:12:14 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 02 2006 - 15:12:14 EST