tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post3007874774903861157..comments2024-03-24T00:33:00.389-07:00Comments on Bounded Science: Join together to report scholarly misconduct?Tom Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03887540845396409340noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post-87674918498004275352009-10-09T00:58:09.238-07:002009-10-09T00:58:09.238-07:00IMO, it's more important to show IEEE what a e...IMO, it's more important to show IEEE what a embarrassingly poor paper they have published. The next edition of <i>IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans</i> will appear in November, I suppose - I hope I'll find some reactions to R. Marks's and W. Dembski's opusculum in it...DiEbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099109109735165335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post-33771837596825866152009-10-07T15:08:38.582-07:002009-10-07T15:08:38.582-07:00Bob,
I appreciate your feedback.
The omission of...Bob,<br /><br />I appreciate your feedback.<br /><br />The omission of references to the prior analysis of (1,2) and (1+1) evolutionary algorithms is not stupidity, considering that analysis of the algorithms did not appear in the article until I explained the "comma" algorithm to Marks and told him that there was plenty of prior work.<br /><br />It's good to hear that the "crimes seem pretty minor" to you. Wes also recommended against filing complaints of academic dishonesty. The adage "no publicity is bad publicity" seems to be absolutely true for the ID movement. I don't want to risk generating publicity when the expected payoff is low.<br /><br />What can I say, but that I do believe that the article is academically dishonest, and that I wish I had a stronger response than words. Thanks for helping to dissuade me from making a bad decision out of frustration.Tom Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01588057273889552197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782688301621700725.post-27942572725834174322009-10-06T14:03:40.687-07:002009-10-06T14:03:40.687-07:00Hmm. I'm not convinced this is a good idea. ...Hmm. I'm not convinced this is a good idea. The crimes seem pretty minor, so it might be perceived as being petty. And (as you mentioned at AtBC) it brings up the <i>Expelled</i> spectre. I would be uneasy about signing such a letter, because the infractions seem minor, and could easily be interpreted as a witch-hunt.<br /><br />I also wonder if the authors are trying to be honest, but have some awful blind spots. I've never met either of them, so I can't judge their character but I generally stick to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor" rel="nofollow">Hanlon's Razor</a> as a good explanation.<br /><br />Would a subtler tactic be to submit a response to the journal outlining these points, and if it is published, show the response to the Baylor and SWTS? At the very least, it might be worth sounding out their employers first.Bob O'Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15666738696003108444noreply@blogger.com