Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

McGrew makes an apology, but Myers has not

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yesterday I reported statements by Professor Tim McGrew, Chair of the Philosophy of Science Department at Western Michigan University. Here are some updates as more information has rolled in.

I posted excerpts and links to McGrew’s statements yesterday here at: More antics from PZ Myers?. My only major comment was, “you be the judge.”

In brief, PZ Myers was accused by McGrew of lying and fabricating quotes and attributing them to Jonathan Wells. It appears some of the accusations by McGrew were inaccurate, and McGrew has detailed the issues where he felt he was hasty in making judgments about PZ Myers:

My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design

my original charge of outright fabrication was careless and arose from my reading of the text actually written by Wells rather than of the callouts written by some editor…I’ve apologized to PZ. But PZ needs to apologize to Wells.

–Tim McGrew

McGrew reports apologizing to Myers, but there is no report of Myers giving an apology or explanation to Wells even though I and others have presented evidence from PZ’s writings that PZ has misrepresented Wells.

Myers claims what Wells did regarding Ballard’s comments on the gastrula stage was to:

pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage

Myers has not responded to querries that he clarify that claim especially in light of the fact that it has been pointed out here and on his weblog that Wells used the word “gastrulation” three times in his book (and not pharyngulation or pharyngula) on pages 30-31 when referring to Ballard and other’s work.

Myers has provided no response to justify his claim Wells was pretending Ballard’s comments on gastrula stages were comments on pharyngula stages. Myers further uses this claim to argue that Jonathan Wells lied.

Myers has given no indication of giving a clarification, explanation, correction, retraction, or apology to his fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells.

However, if Myers does offer any apology, the commeters are invited to post it or links to it here.

(Have a nice weekend)
Update 11/6/06: Dr. Jonathan Wells Responds to Critics

Comments
Myers ranted a bit more here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/well_well_wells_jonathan_wells.phpPatrick
November 28, 2006
November
11
Nov
28
28
2006
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
steveh, The other point about antics, is well, PZ has a reputation even among his own for extreme comments. He got an earful from PandasThumb contributors for his negative comments on Ken Miller. So, lack of diplomacy and outrageous commnets, I regard as part of his antics. Salscordova
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
PZ has a history of misrepresentation. I was referring to that. Do you remember Scott Adams of Dilbert and PZ
I certainly do. Though I don't see the point of raking it all up again here. I disagree with the linked telicthoughts appraisal but I am not confident that I could explain why without annoying people.steveh
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
update: Wells Responds to critics like PZ.scordova
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Steve h, PZ has a history of misrepresentation. I was referring to that. Do you remember Scott Adams of Dilbert and PZ Salscordova
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Well, PZ DOES have a history of such antics, so he might have been suggesting just that.
Can you give examples of such antics (deliberately changing quotes) ? I realise the rules don't allow you to give direct links but maybe you could give a post titles and dates. Similarly for examples of "Hate Speech". Although, that term is open to interpretation - are the first few anti PZ comments in the other thread "Hate speech" , or just "fair comment"? I know he can be quite opinionated and a little abrasive at times but not necessarily more so than the people who complain about him.steveh
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
PZ wrote at Myers 1 What? Cordova thinks I could have just visited Uncommon Descent and given my side? Excuse me, I have to go get over this laughing fit. That's insane. Everyone knows that the UD whip-bosses edit and censor comments that disturb their equanimity. There was a deletion in that thread already; I suspect that only the fact that some of us caught on fast and started pointing out the hypocrisy of their actions prevented the whole thing from vanishing down the legendary UD memory hole.
To set the record straight, can the mods tell me if PZ would be banned or unwelcome here or would we not rather relish the opportunity to take him on (unless of course he were too vulgar or whatever) on questions of relevance to what he asserts on scientific matters or things he said in critique of what IDers have published in print.scordova
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Let me point out something, Weblogs are the perfect place to solicit critiques of ideas and claims one want verification of:
I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages. William Dembski, I’m not going to give away all my secrets, but one thing I sometimes do is post on the web a chapter or section from a forthcoming book, let the critics descend, and then revise it so that what appears in book form preempts the critics’ objections. An additional advantage with this approach is that I can cite the website on which the objections appear, which typically gives me the last word in the exchange. And even if the critics choose to revise the objections on their website, books are far more permanent and influential than webpages. William Dembski, appropriate methods of getting free help from critics "Dealing with the Backlash"
scordova
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Touchstone wrote: I think it’s quite disingenuous to hide behind “You be the judge”. No one is confused or fooled as to why McGrews allegations received attention (albeit without diligence) here.
I was contacted about McGrew's comments by a 3rd party and had reason to believe his account had possible merit. I posted it in a forum where his claims had the possiblity to be disputed, and I was willing to post contrary opinions. What's your problem? I posted his retraction and links to Myers claim. I, meaning me, think McGrew was hasty and mistaken in the points he retracted, and I (meaning me) think Myers has yet to account for claimng Wells was referring to Pharyngula when it turns out Wells used the word gastrulation 3 times. Weblogs are an opportunity to discuss and get at the truth. I think McGrew had some good points, and was willing to admit his mistake on his bad points. I think it is Myers turn to fess up. I posted a correction in 24 hours. That's more than I can say for Myers.scordova
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
For starters, I want to say that there is no question that PZ Myers deliberately misrepresented the book. Here is the boxed call-out statement that appears on page 35 of the book --
It is "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates "are more alike than their adults."-- William Ballard, Bioscience, 1976.
Only the words within the quote marks are directly attributed to Ballard -- the words in question, "early embryo stages," are not within quote marks. I agree that this call-out statement is ambiguous and potentially misleading, but that does not excuse PZ Myers from completely ignoring the pp. 30-31 text which clarifies this call-out statement. Images of page 35 and pages 30-31 are on PZ's blog at --http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/pz_myers_is_such_a_liar.php The above call-out statement should not even have been a call-out in the first place because to most people that statement has significance only in the context of the text whereas call-outs are supposed to have some significance as stand-alone statements. The only reason why PZ noticed that this call-out statement is ambiguous and possibly misleading is that he is a specialist in the field of evolutionary developmental biology. Anyway, IMO the whole statement would be bad even if it had been an accurate representation of what Ballard said. As I noted on my blog,
. . . .because the structures of the adult forms and early embryo forms of organisms are radically different, statements that the early embryos of two species are "more alike than their parents" or "less alike than their parents" are often meaningless. I assert that Ballard created tremendous confusion here by speaking in those terms.
McGrew apparently made an honest mistake by understandably thinking that Myers' reference to page 35 was a reference to the text and not to a call-out. In contrast, Myers' review deliberately misrepresented Wells' book by ignoring the text on pages 30-31. Would it have been that hard for Myers to discuss both the call-out on page 35 and the text on pages 30-31? PZ Myers' misrepresentation of Wells' book is discussed on my blog at -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/11/sleazy-pz-myers-is-caught-quote-mining.html My review of PZ's review of chaper 3 of Wells' book is at (this review of PZ's review has some serious errors resulting from PZ's misrepresentation of the book) -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/review-of-pz-myers-review-of-chapter-3.htmlLarry Fafarman
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
rrf, I prefer to be called, "Douglas". It's part of my mystique. And, I agree with you about carping not being in keeping with Matthew 5:44, though I'm not sure Salvador has "backpedalled" (maybe he has, maybe he hasn't - I've not kept close track on his responses here). When I said Salvador has "nothing to apologize for", I was being a bit sloppy - I meant in terms of accusations, false statements, etc.. In terms of nuanced implications, I suppose he should "apologize" for indulging in some vague "carping", but as I said, given Myers' history and tendencies, one can argue that Salvador was merely swayed by those aspects of Myers, and understandably so. Anyway, I agree Salvador could have handled it a bit better. But I don't think he engaged in anything egregiously negative (considering Myers' known character and manners), nor do I believe his intent was malicious.Douglas
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
cfrench "…I just threw up." And I just banned you.DaveScot
November 6, 2006
November
11
Nov
6
06
2006
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
Doug, the carping and the subsequent backpedalling hardly seem in keeping with Matthew 5:44.rrf
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Touchston, you said,
“Still, the “Antics” in question then are not the “antics” being pressed now (see Jehu’s arguments above, for example).
Not true. It is true that McGraw’s emphasis was on the idea the Myers misquoted Wells. However, what I have been discussing is not different than what McGraw posted. This is the quote from Myers featured at the beginning of McGraw’s original post.
“This is the heart of Wells’s strategy: pick comments by developmental biologists referring to different stages, which say very different things about the similarity of embryos, and conflate them. It’s easy to make it sound like scientists are willfully lying about the state of our knowledge when you can pluck out a statement about the diversity at the gastrula stage, omit the word “gastrula”, and pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage. Literally. He is actually that dishonest.”
Was Wells literaly attempting to pretend a quote about the gastrula stage applied to the pharyngula stage? No. Was Wells even suggesting that? No. So Myers is lying even if he did not misquote Wells to tell the lie. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. Unless one is biased and does not want to understand.Jehu
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Well, PZ DOES have a history of such antics, so he might have been suggesting just that. If you have a history of hate speech- you can't whine when someone sees a complaint and accepts it. Once you set down the pattern, it's hard to get rid of the stigma, and that's how it goes. Now, if PZ goes back and recants much of his hate speech and apologizes for constant offensive remarks, that'd be a different story. But he hasn't, and he shows no sign of being ready to do so. Just pick out a handful of blog posts from him and tell me he's not the epitome of incivility and bad manners. Or worse- tell me you would feel comfortable with your kids being taught by him with such hateful diatribes pouring out seemingly nonstop.JasonTheGreek
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
JasonTheGreek:
He never made any charge against anyone as he said, he just brought it up for discussion. Isn’t that fair to do? I think his wording was VERY fair- he said more antics from PZ? the question mark is, I think, quite important. Especially since in the post itself he merely said- here’s a comment from someone else, YOU be the judge.
I have to disagree with you. Sal asked us to judge after presenting only one side of the case - the one against PZ. Furthermore, by referring to "more antics" (ludicrous or extravagant acts or jestures) he is most certainly prejudicing the case, suggesting a history of similar behaviour in the past even if questioning this particular occurence. Of course I could be reading too much into that, but the first eight comments (which I think were probably the sort of thing Sal was after) and Sal's subsequent comments and calls for apologies suggest that I am not.steveh
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Now I wonder if Haggard will apologize to Dawkins. :)Fross
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
I think it's clear that Salvador was implying, by his post, that PZ was caught in a lie, another "antic" by him, if you will. (First time I've ever used the phrase, "if you will", in my life - it's sort of freeing.) And, I would agree that Salvador's original post has a hint of "smug carping" about it (it is oh so easy to descend into "smug carping" when it comes to PZ Myers, though). But, Salvador has nothing to apologize for, in my opinion, and has handled the whole thing far more fairly and nobly-mindedly (I see the extra "y") than PZ Myers and his trusty trumpeting troubadours of truth would have, if the shoes were on the other feet. Furthermore, Salvador's point about PZ Myers NOT having yet apologized for his emotional and false accusation regarding Dr. Wells is quite pertinent and revealing. PZ Myers' accuser has admitted his error, and apologized to PZ...but PZ seemingly cannot afford to admit an error, and is apparently loathe to deign to apologize to ID pseud0-scientists and vermin. (Probably, he'd prefer they all be quarantined, or shipped to a deserted island somewhere.) If this post contains any smug carping, I apologize for it beforehand, but it will remain as it is.Douglas
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Jason, you are no more convincing than Sal with this "it was just for discussion" line. The only reason it was put up here at Uncommon Descent was because it was critical of PZ. Any article complementary of PZ would never see the light of day around here. Until such a time as an article that reflects positively on PZ (and I am not holding my breath), all Sal was doing was engaging in smug carping.rrf
November 5, 2006
November
11
Nov
5
05
2006
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
Touchstone. I don't see what the big deal is. Sal linked to another site that made a claim about PZ. PZ, probably seeing the long pattern of rabid comments from PZ, wondered if these were more antics...he simply brought the subject up for discussion. The professor who made the original charge Sal linked to apologized. Sal noted this. I don't think he has anything to be sorry for. He never made any charge against anyone...as he said, he just brought it up for discussion. Isn't that fair to do? I think his wording was VERY fair- he said "more antics from PZ?" the question mark is, I think, quite important. Especially since in the post itself he merely said- here's a comment from someone else, YOU be the judge. So, he was clearly not passing judgement himself, just linking to another and asking those who comment here to judge the issue. I don't see any other way he could have even brought the topic up, unless he started it off with "I swear an oath I am not personally passing judgement..."- which would be rather pointless, since it's already inherent in the wording itself. He asked US to be the judge, which shows he wasn't passing judgement, but simply offering up this link for discussion.JasonTheGreek
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
24. cfrench // Nov 4th 2006 at 10:45 pm “…fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells.” …I just threw up.
I assume you think that anyone who isn't a Darwinist isn't a true scientist? I wonder what it takes to be a "true scientist"? The inventor of the laser is a young earth creationist. I guess he's not a true scientist. Are only men who think that there is no God true scientists? Or maybe it's men who think God exists but is impossible to detect in the world? I wonder who gets to choose who a true scientist and who isn't? Is there a special board somewhere of men with black robes who sit on fancy benches who make these decisions? I wonder it it merely requires a certain level of groupthink before you're considered a true scientist? I wonder if you can be considered a true scientist, then take a position close to Wells and they take away your "true scientist" member card?JasonTheGreek
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Hi Patrick, I accept your point about PZ Myers being in the title, as opposed to McGrew -- you're suggesting that removes McGrew as the *subject*, right? A technical, but fair argument. Still, the "Antics" in question then are not the "antics" being pressed now (see Jehu's arguments above, for example). As for Sal, well, color me cynical I guess; the question mark is there, but it doesn't really signal a spirit of inquiry, at least not any more than the National Enquirer at that supermarket yesterday was truly just curious: Did Urban cheat on Jen? I'm sure they'd say "Notice the question mark?" if the reports turned out to be false. No one's fooling anybody here with punctuation. That's the sum of my complaint, I suppose. Enough from me, though, I've said my piece on this matter. -TouchstoneTouchstone
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
Sayonara. Comment by kharley471 — November 4, 2006 @ 5:52 pm Thank you. I was having a hard time getting at your points because your belligerence kept getting in the way.russ
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
"...fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells." ...I just threw up.cfrench
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
But spare us the “Never-mind-the-false-accusations-what-about-this-other-thing” tactics. Or the “We just said ‘You be the judge’” plea… This crew here aims at higher standards than that, I’m sure.
I'm a UD mod. My first reaction to McGrew's accusation was skepticism since I doubted Meyers would falsify something so easy to double-check. Fortunately Meyers himself saved me the bother of looking up the relevant pages in the book. I also very much doubt Sal was lying about his intentions to merely discuss the accusation. After all, if you look at the title it says "More antics from PZ Myers?"...notice the question mark? At the same there is definitely more to discuss when it comes to the accuracy of Meyer's claim (which, based upon the above comments, has been adequately shot down).Patrick
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
kharley471
Well, I see the way the games works, at least. You are deliberately misunderstanding me, although I think that you know quite well what I’ve said.
Actually, I have understood you quite well and you have failed to make a salient point.
First of all, I was referring to Well’s “citation,” not yours.
And so that means you understand the science here?
“This is a blog not a journal.” It sure isn’t a scholarly journal, we agree on that. But therefore, not being one, I don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face this blog is an authoritative resource on science.
Nobody said that it is, so as usual, you have no point.
“I don’t see any evidence that you understand the science being discussed here or have bothered to read Ballard’s paper.” I have read it. You are toying with me. Well, go toy with an amateur.
Then I guess you have just failed to demonstrate that you comprehend it.
“Ballard does not explain what ‘early’ means at each stage.” Now, that is just stupid. You know perfectly well that Ballard made it clear to which stage he referred when discussing development at each point in his article. This is just childish.
Sure, but he didn't "explain what 'early' means at each stage" as you claim. What Ballard states is that none of the early stages are conserved, they are distinct, which is what Wells' described. So your allegaton that Wells misused Ballard is entirely baseless.Jehu
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Jehu, I don't think I need to disagree with your analysis of Myer's approach to simply say it doesn't/shouldn't get in the way of simply saying: we went off half-cocked, sorry! You can pursue your complaints against PZ with all due vigor -- I won't think to deny you that, even if I'm able (I'm not). This is really more about UD being "stand-up" folk when things go haywire. If Myers did mischaracterize Wells, make your case, you're doing a fine job. But spare us the "Never-mind-the-false-accusations-what-about-this-other-thing" tactics. Or the "We just said 'You be the judge'" plea... This crew here aims at higher standards than that, I'm sure. McGrew blew it. We should have checked it out first, and didn't. We regret the error and will strive do better in vetting things like this in the future... Is that so hard? -TouchstoneTouchstone
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
pk4_paul, I think Myers mis-stated the case viz. Wells, yes. It doesn't come across to me as clearly dishonest, but it's not a fair representation of Wells, I'll grant. And it should be addressed. But as a Christian, I urge high standards and generous attitudes for everyone, but I don't expect PZ to show the same standards of conduct in discourse as I expect from Christians. UD would have much more leverage and moral credibility here if they just separated the two: a) came clean for being a bullhorn for accusations that were false, then b) pursued the "gastrula" question completely separately, without mention of the McGrew gaffe at all. That shows an intent to operate from the high ground in the debate, where UD belongs. As it is, it's increasingly clear that UD has chosen to pursue a scientific debate with a strategy of scorched-earth politics. Or fight a katie-bar-the-door political battle under the pretense of a scientific debate. Take your pick. -TouchstoneTouchstone
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
kharley471: Adios o thou who art enomored with 19th century mystery religions. Thou shalt be greatly missed.Scott
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
I don't think Wells is "anti-evolution", and I surely don't think he was trying to say that Ballard was anti-evolution in any sense. He was speaking on a specific issue. Myers used the quote from the box, claiming Wells was distorting the issue, but Wells quoted Ballard and full a few pages before this. Maybe Myers refused to read the book, but only read a few selected sections of it? That's laziness at best. What Wells said fits. He didn't distort Ballard, and the quote was in 2 places- the first quote was full and didn't distort Ballard's view as far as I can tell. I'm not sure why anyone needs to apologize. Sal quoted what someone else said and asked for discussion. Suddenly someone here needs to apologize? For what exactly? For linking to someone else's quote and saying, 'what do you all think'? Your comments that this isn't a good resource for science are- well, I don't know what purpose they serve. If you think it's devoid of any true science, why bother to read or comment? It sounds childish to attack in this manner. Worse- it's silly to start trying to read people's minds telling them that they know what they're saying isn't true or that they're deliberately misunderstaing you, when it could be a simple case of you being wrong. That is possible, I can assume, no? Wells wasn't trying to say Ballard is, in any way anti-evolution, or even anti NeoDarwinian evolution. He was speaking of a specific part of Ballard's paper, and it matches the quote in the book and matches the facts so far as I can tell.JasonTheGreek
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply