dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/12/85)
Well, I noticed that none of you seemed to think very much of my submitting the interview relating to the scissoring incident, so I wrote to Norman Macbeth to see if I could oblige you further. --- Dear Mr. Macbeth, I have recently begun to read your work concerning the status of Darwinism (Yale Review, Darwin Retried, Systematic Zoology, and Towards). I have found your writing quite instructive and valuable. Let me admit that in large measure this is because I am a creationist. I am writing as a consequence of recent events transpiring in an origins discussion in which I am a participant. This discussion takes place via the medium of an electronic "bulletin board" on a network connecting several computers, and allows each participant to read the contributions of others, as well as to submit articles of one's own for consideration by the rest of the community. A short while ago, "the most horrible anecdote of all" which you had mentioned in the Towards interview was mentioned (briefly) by another creationist. (The incident in which Brady's article was scissored out of Systematic Zoology.) As you might guess, the immediate reaction by one of the evolutionists was "give me evidence of this event". I then submitted the text of the anecdote in order to document the incident. This was not (as you might also guess) received very well by the evolutionary participants. The responses were on the order of "one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole barrel" and "this is not evidence", the reason for the latter being that the specific Ivy League college and the name of the department head were not mentioned. In other words, they didn't believe it, and the implication was, of course, that the whole thing was made up to make evolutionists look bad. (In some respects this is a justified inference; regrettably, creationists do on occasion fail to follow the requirements of good scholarship. But as the anecdote was yours, and as you are not a creationist, I consider the conclusion invalid.) I imagine that you did not give specific details, in order to afford a certain measure of anonymity to the person who did the scissoring; however, I would like to be able to document the event to the satisfaction of those who find the anecdote suspicious. Would you be willing to divulge the name of the college involved or the name of the person, or both? I appreciate that this is a rather delicate matter, and I understand completely any reluctance you might have. It seemed pretty clear, however, that I certainly would not gain any information by not asking! I thank you for such time and assistance you think appropriate to devote to this matter, and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Paul DuBois --- I received a reply yesterday which I will pass along. He said that the incident is indeed a delicate matter, and for that reason, he has forwarded my letter to the professor who originally informed him of it. He didn't know what the professor would do or say. If I get something, I'll let you know. At this point, I almost expect to see a reply on the order of "oh sure, you SAY you wrote to Macbeth", or "sure, he SAYS he forwarded the letter, but how do we know?" Strictly speaking, you don't. But do you REALLY think that the whole thing is just made up? Granted, it's just a single incident. But some of the replies to previous articles seemed to me to imply that the entire thing is a fabrication. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (04/13/85)
> > At this point, I almost expect to see a reply on the order of "oh > sure, you SAY you wrote to Macbeth", or "sure, he SAYS he forwarded > the letter, but how do we know?" Strictly speaking, you don't. But > do you REALLY think that the whole thing is just made up? Granted, > it's just a single incident. Oh, Lord, Paul, I don't really think that anyone is really on your case concerning the *truth* of the incident; I knew a number of professors in grad school that were very good teachers, but who had this quirk (you name it: sadism, male chauvinism, racism, personal hatreds and prejudices) that twisted their personal lives (and even invaded their professional lives) but didn't invalidate the things they taught. They are human, after all. I can see the incident happening; the real question is what does it mean with respect to scientific attitudes in general? It is well known that many senior scientists and professors are arrogant, petty and dogmatic; does that make creationism any more palatable? -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/13/85)
[] As one of those who stated that the scissoring anectode was "not evidence", I would like to clarify my thoughts on this issue. By saying that a story about anonomous people in an anonomous university is not evidence, I was not stating that I did not believe it. This lack of disbelief goes for the statement that you saw it in a book, and for the idea that it happened. I know (and I'm sure most people in this discussion, both of the scientific and the creationist type, know) many professors of science who would be easily capable of such acts. I was simply stating that to present such a story without also making it verifiable was like saying "you know, this might have happened....". And that's not a very interesting contribution to a discussion of this nature. Also, while such incidents do not really affect the validity of science, they do affect the way science is percieved by others, and they certainly place barriers in the way of the progress of science. One of the effects of verifying that such incidents happened is to make their presentation in discussions such as this more interesting. Another effect is to get them out into the open, so that the world of science can make it clear that it is unacceptable behavior (I think that the care that is being taken to protect the identity of the individual is an indication that it is recognized as unacceptable behavior).
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/15/85)
> [Lyle McElhaney] > Oh, Lord, Paul, I don't really think that anyone is really on your case > concerning the *truth* of the incident; I knew a number of professors in > grad school that were very good teachers, but who had this quirk (you > name it: sadism, male chauvinism, racism, personal hatreds and prejudices) > that twisted their personal lives (and even invaded their professional lives) > but didn't invalidate the things they taught. They are human, after all. > I can see the incident happening; the real question is what does it mean > with respect to scientific attitudes in general? It is well known that > many senior scientists and professors are arrogant, petty and dogmatic; > does that make creationism any more palatable? Of course not! Do you think that I was trying to imply that it did? -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |