Re: [asa] taking a hiatus

My own take is that the article by Groothius was both relevant for
PSCF and useful. That I don't happen to agree with it is beside the
point.

On 1/5/09, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> Unless one define exactly what science is, then one has no basis to say that
> ID, which may be more an inference from a combination of data from the
> experimental sciences PLUS data not dealt with the experimental sciences,
> should not be published in PSCF.
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of
> Dennis Venema [Dennis.Venema@twu.ca]
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:03 PM
> To: David Opderbeck; Nucacids
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] taking a hiatus
>
> Judging from the table of statistics in the recent issue (see page 13), PSCF
> rejects plenty of articles. Too bad the rejection count wasn't higher by
> one.
>
> No journal should feel obliged to publish merely to bulk up its page count –
> nor do I think PSCF does this, generally.
>
> If being a part of ASA means supporting baseless, unscholarly pro-ID pieces
> such as Groothuis's, then I will seriously reconsider my membership when it
> comes due. There are other memberships that I forgo in order to be a part of
> the ASA. I would be happy to see thoughtful, well-supported scholarly
> articles on ID in PSCF. For example, I haven't yet read Snoke's paper in the
> same issue, but based on a cursory scan it seems that he is playing in
> bounds and might have something interesting to add to the discussion. Bald
> assertion that ID is science and should be taught in a secular university
> setting (by a professor of philosophy, no less) doesn't cut it, sorry. It
> makes the ASA look foolish.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 05/01/09 11:51 AM, "David Opderbeck"
> <dopderbeck@gmail.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> wrote:
>
> I think the problem you guys are highlighting is perhaps both a problem with
> PSCF and a "problem" with the way the ASA is constituted.
>
> PSCF, I gather, is understaffed with volunteers and receives fewer
> top-quality submissions than is ideal. If you want to remedy this, it seems
> to me, one productive path would be to submit your own articles and to
> volunteer as a reviewer. Maybe the journal should only be published twice a
> year with a blog supplement to increase quality until submissions improve?
> Maybe it should be made open access without a fixed publication schedule?
> But there was going to be a sort of post-peer review online discussion forum
> for published articles which doesn't seem to be materializing.
>
> Still, the ASA is a hybrid TE / ID organization, essentially, I think.
> You'll probably have to swallow some tripe with your pudding no matter what
> side you come from.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Nucacids
> <nucacids@wowway.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> wrote:
> Hi dennis,
>
> You are right. I was just stepping back to look at the bigger picture.
>
> Of course, peer review is not perfect. It is not uncommon for an author to
> receive completely different evaluations of the same article from different
> peer reviewers. I always think of the real peer review happening after
> publication, not before publication. But maybe that's just me.
>
> Mike
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> The issue I have is that Groothius's main points are made by bare assertion,
> without any supporting documentation from the literature (even pro-ID
> literature). He carries on his discussion as if there were no wider
> discussion of his ideas, even though the points he asserts are highly
> contentious.
>
> The assertion that ID "gives science another tool for empirical
> investigation" is flawed without supporting examples. The best that can be
> said is that ID might provide such means in the future, although then it
> would behoove Groothius to discuss why it has not to date, and rebut why
> critics say it never will. Bare assertion of a main point essential to the
> thesis of an article is sloppy scholarship and should not appear in a
> peer-reviewed journal.
>
> dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.