RE: [asa] Sternberg quote

The information I have seen suggests that Sternberg did follow the normal peer-review process. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish. What this incident also shows is that the Intelligent Design claim of discrimination by scientists in the acceptance of papers written from an ID perspective has some basis in fact. The uproar was over the fact that the paper espoused a way of looking at things that was not in line with the "accepted" science establishment viewpoint.
 
Don Cal breath

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of drsyme@cablespeed.com
Sent: Tue 3/27/07 6:56 AM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: PvM; David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Sternberg quote

To me what stinks like a fish is Sternberg's cry of
discrimination. He was the one that made the error in
judgment by publishing the paper, and by circumventing the
normal peer review process.

In my opinion, the burden of proof is on you to show that
the scientists at the Smithsonian have an axe to grind
against religion. Do they discriminate against anyone
else with religious views, Christian, creationist or
otherwise?

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:10:07 -0400
  "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> *I think the scientists at the Smithsonian were simply
> embarassed about the Meyer publication, and were angry
>at
> Sternberg over it.*
> **
> I think it goes deeper than that, and yes, I do think it
>was, in a
> significant respect, at least for a few of the
>individuals involved, a
> question of religious discrimination.
>
> One of the difficult things about a case like this is
>that it involves a
> question of intent. You can't really know another
>person's intent, and even
> if you could, it's impossible to define a single
>"intent" behind most
> actions -- people always act for mixed and often
>contradictory reasons --
> and even if you could do that, a corporation or
>institution is made up of
> disparate individuals who among them have mixed and
>contradictory motives.
>
> At the end of the day, though, there's kind of an
>intuitive feel involved in
> judging such a case. One question I would ask myself in
>defending this kind
> of case is, "can a completely benign explanation be
>provided for the
> allegedy discriminatory statement / action / policy, in
>a few sentences or
> less, such that a typical battle-hardened mid-level
>employee from the jury
> pool would find it instantly credible?" Or, more
>poetically, "if it stinks
> like a fish, it's a fish."
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/27/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com
><drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Having read some of the internal emails relating to
>>the
>> >Sternberg matter,
>> > there's no doubt at all in my mind that some of his
>> >superiors were out to
>> > get him because of his creationist leanings. Simply
>>no
>> >doubt at all. In my
>> > view, it's ludicrous to claim otherwise.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> But is that discrimination against religion? He denies
>> being creationist first of all. But if he is a
>> creationist, with all of the pseudoscientific baggage
>>that
>> brings, are they out of line to question Sternberg's
>> motives?
>>
>> I think the scientists at the Smithsonian were simply
>> embarassed about the Meyer publication, and were angry
>>at
>> Sternberg over it.
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 27 11:37:22 2007