Re: [asa] Hadley files stolen and published on the internet...

Hi Ted,

My answers to your questions interspersed...

Ted Davis wrote:
> In light of the conversation about the Hadley files, I have a few
> questions to ask. I assure everyone that they are open questions, not
> leading questions. Here we go:
>
> (1) Is this particular incident any different, in principle, to having
> the "wedge" document from TDI made available publicly, after it was
> hacked from the TDI web site?
No. That too was a morally questionable act and perhaps even an illegal
one? If the later, the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law.

My hands, incidentally, are clean with respect to the "wedge" document -
so I am rather enjoying, at this moment, the pure, unsullied air of the
moral high ground. The interesting thing about being up here is the way
in which the clouds go sailing by - it's an interesting combination:
Absolute clarity of view one moment and having ones head in the clouds
the next...

I will say that I think the DI has not denied an agenda behind the wedge
document in the same way as scientists have denied an agenda behind
Global Warming theories? I also think that the wedge document does not
contain anything which remotely questions ID itself - only lays out a
social/political strategy which the DI wanted to keep low-profile for
strategic reasons?

Nothing questionable in the DI's behaviour here, as far as I can tell -
so chalk up another parallel between authors of the wedge document and
the authors of the CRU e-mail's. :)
>
> (2) Is this particular incident any different, in principle, to
> reporters calling up government officials/employees, and getting them
> to admit (with promises of confidentiality) to certain activities
> and/or conversations that would otherwise not be known to the general
> public? In other words, can this be seen as equivalent to
> investigative journalism?
It might. But even if it were directly identified, it still doesn't help
further the question as to whether the practice is morally acceptable.
>
> I can see a public policy component in this incident, and for that
> reason I am not seeing any reasons to distinguish this incident from
> the types mentioned above. Obviously I may be missing something, or
> others may see it differently even if I am not missing something.
I think my bottom line on this is reasonably pragmatic: the people who
stole the information in question should be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law (and note the different legal jurisdictions - the CRU
hack is not quite a "type 1 felony" but it may well be the English
equivalent) but now that the material is public it would seem to be
necessary to deal with it openly.

The only alternative seems to be to allow sensationalist interpretations
to run amok - and, yes, I do classify much of the reaction to the wedge
document as sensationalist as well.

Blessings,
Murray

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 23 15:34:44 2009