[Taxacom] Rejoinder to a monster review

[Richard Jensen]

John,

Process, as a noun, refers to the actions taken to achieve an end, i.e.,
the process of science.  You are equating the process with the actions of
individuals (or groups).  Those are two separate things.  The process of
science may be viewed as analogous to a set of instructions or a method
(hey, there's an idea - a method of science!), e.g., a recipe for
extracting DNA from cells.  Having the method/recipe is not the same as
carrying out the actions described by the recipe.

There may be people who, when doing science, work to actively suppress
ideas.  But I don't believe the recipe includes that step!  Such people
abuse/misuse the process of  science.

Dick

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:06 PM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dick,
>
> The process of science is the actions of individuals (whether as a group
> of individuals or separate individuals). If suppression is part of those
> actions then it is part of the process of science just as much as
> individuals such as yourself.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> These examples reflect the decisions/opinions of individuals (perhaps
>> groups of individuals), not of the process of science.  I still contend
>> that suppression of knowledge is not part of the scientific endeavor (i.e.,
>> the process of science).  My role as a scientist is not to suppress airing
>> of ideas put forth by others.  Rather, my role, if I believe those ideas
>> are not worthy of being treated as science, is to provide evidence to
>> refute those ideas.
>>
>> Dick J
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And I must cite another explicit example. The editors of the popular
>>> science Journal 'Natural History' sent me a letter stating that they would
>>> never publish any viewpoint that did not conform to the molecular theory of
>>> humans and chimpanzees being most closely related. They would not allow
>>> molecular theory to be challenged. This from a journal that has its very
>>> reason for existence as the dissemination of science.
>>>
>>> John Grehan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Richard Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Can you please cite references for your claim that the "process of
>>>> science is...to suppress".  While I know that there are numerous instances
>>>> of movements to suppress information, I wasn't aware that such suppression
>>>> was part of the process, at least not as I understand the process of
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>>> Dick J
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I get the impression that quite a few natural science journals shy away
>>>>> from allowing debate or responses. Syst Biol certainly went that way
>>>>> over
>>>>> the attack they published against panbiogeography so I suppose its not
>>>>> surprising to see in other journals. After all, the process of science
>>>>> is
>>>>> not only to discover, but also to suppress. Not good or bad, but just
>>>>> the
>>>>> way it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Grehan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Richard Zander <
>>>>> Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Taxacomers:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > A monster review of my book was published by the journal Cladistics,
>>>>> but
>>>>> > they refused to publish my rebuttal. Another journal with a kindly
>>>>> editor
>>>>> > did so, however.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > My rejoinder to this nasty review was entirely collegial, gentle,
>>>>> caring
>>>>> > and supportive of all forms of systematics, and I hope solvent of
>>>>> > misunderstandings. I only mentioned Hitler once.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Those of you who continue to enjoy the continuing and increasingly
>>>>> surreal
>>>>> > drama of the paraphyly wars might view my review of the review:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://phytoneuron.net/2014Phytoneuron/110PhytoN-ParaphylophilyResponse.pdf
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Richard
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -------
>>>>> > Richard H. Zander
>>>>> > Missouri Botanical Garden - 4344 Shaw Blvd. - St. Louis - Missouri -
>>>>> 63110
>>>>> > - USA
>>>>> > richard.zander at mobot.org<mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
>>>>> > Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
>>>>> > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>>> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>>>>> >
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Jensen, Professor
>>>> Department of Biology
>>>> Saint Mary's College
>>>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Jensen, Professor
>> Department of Biology
>> Saint Mary's College
>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>
>
>


-- 
Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556