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

Depends what you mean by "clean", Murray. Rich may be willing to admit that
there's a parity between these documents and the "Wedge", but then that
means the NCSE (among many others) is a pack of thieving felons. Case in
point: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document -- Is one's hands
clean if they collude with "thieves and felons"? Or does this mean that
being a thief and a felon isn't all that big a deal in the long run?

Amusing thoughts. Nevertheless...

I look forward to seeing when and how these emails are "dealt with openly".
Right now the preferred strategy for some seems to be to call "foul" and,
with hands on hips, sternly insist that these revelations be immediately
forgotten by the world as they are in violation of the rules. That brand of
craziness, along with the (faux, forced) sanctimony coming with it is what's
really putting a weird spin on this whole affair. And I can't help but find
myself wondering if the fallout will be that less respect and trust is
afforded to scientists and academics in general. And if, perhaps, such a hit
is not richly deserved.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>wrote:

> 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.
>

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 17:38:45 2009