[Taxacom] suppression in science

Peter Hovenkamp phovenkamp at casema.nl
Sun Dec 3 08:05:51 CST 2017 

This is beginning to look like a specific Taxacom version of Godwin's 
law: if a discussion continues long enough, someone will blame "cladism".

It also reminds me not a little of a certain head of state who continues 
to blame his beaten opponent.

C'mon guys, get a life. Find something new to say.

Peter Hovenkamp

Op 30-Nov-17 om 8:22 PM schreef igor pavlinov:
> For your even more elation - Popper's maxim (sorry for an awkward back translations from Russian).
>
> "If some theory begins to seem to you the only possible ... you did understand neither the theory nor the problem it pretends to resolve"
>
> So: if a cladist begins to ensure you his/her theory is the only "true" (right" etc) taxonomic theory (de Queiroz etc), you just reimnd him/her the just above.  Cheers
>
> Igor
>
> - - -
> Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
> Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
> ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
> 125009 Moscow
> Russia
> http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov1.htm
> http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm
>
>> Четверг, 30 ноября 2017, 20:36 +03:00 от Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>        I can still remember how delighted I was upon reading David Hull's 1979 paper, The Limits of Cladism, Systematic Zoology 28:416-440.   Even today, it should probably be on every taxonomist's must read list.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Taxacom < taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu > on behalf of John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com >
>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:01 AM
>> To: Richard Jensen
>> Cc: taxacom
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] suppression in science
>>
>> For what is worth or not, below some wry comments on such matters from
>> David Hull (which might be meangful for those of you who have been long
>> enough to know his work).
>>
>> “Although getting a paper rejected on the basis of insufficient grounds
>> always makes the blood boil, this is part of science. One reaction is to
>> say to hell with it. If that’s the way they want to play, I’ll take my ball
>> and go home. The other reaction is to vow to get those sonsabitaches. The
>> second works much better than the former. If you keep at it, you may
>> succeed, in a dozen years or so, coming into power. Before you even realize
>> it and get to enjoy some of the fruits of all your labor, there will be the
>> next generation snapping at your behind. That’s not the greatest feeling in
>> the world either. However, I realize that it is easy enough to give
>> intellectual assent to these lofty observations but impossible to keep them
>> in mind during the heat of battle.”
>>
>>
>> John Grehan
>>
>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon >
>> Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com < http://www.avast.com >
>> [ https://static3.avast.com/20171124/web/i/mkt/share/avast-logo.png ]< http://www.avast.com/ >
>>
>> Avast | Download Free Antivirus for PC, Mac & Android<http://www.avast.com/>
>> www.avast.com
>> Protect your devices with the best free antivirus on the market. Download Avast antivirus and anti-spyware protection for your PC, Mac and Android.
>>
>>
>>
>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link >
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Richard Jensen < rjensen at saintmarys.edu >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Igor,
>>>
>>> I think the definition of "good science", is similar to the view that a
>>> species is whatever a good taxonomist says it is.  We might like to believe
>>> that science is a purely objective process, but its history and practice
>>> put the lie to that.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dick
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, igor pavlinov < ipvl2008 at mail.ru > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The prinicpal question is - what exactly is a "good science".
>>>>
>>>> The matter is that "good" and "bad" are not absolute categories, they are
>>>> subjective estimates based on subjective criteria.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, there are not e few cases when taxonomic papers on
>>>> particular taxa used to be rejectes because there peer reviewers comment
>>>> theyy were not acceptable because they did not follow precisely cladistic
>>>> methodology.
>>>>
>>>> So, cladistics is a "good science" and others are "bad"? How far ago and
>>>> for how long ahead?
>>>>
>>>> Igor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - - -
>>>> Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
>>>> Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
>>>> ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
>>>> < https://maps.google.com/?q=Nikitskaya+6+125009+Moscow+Russia&entry=gmail&source=g >
>>>> 125009 Moscow
>>>> < https://maps.google.com/?q=Nikitskaya+6+125009+Moscow+Russia&entry=gmail&source=g >
>>>> Russia
>>>> < https://maps.google.com/?q=Nikitskaya+6+125009+Moscow+Russia&entry=gmail&source=g >
>>>>   http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov1.htm
>> Русская страничка Павлинова< http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov1.htm >
>> zmmu.msu.ru
>> English. Павлинов Игорь Яковлевич. Доктор биологических наук Зоологический музей МГУ
>>
>>
>>
>>>>   http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm
>> English page of Pavlinov - MSU<http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm>
>> zmmu.msu.ru
>> Russian. Igor Ya. Pavlinov. DrS Zoological Museum, Moscow M.V.Lomonosov State University 125009 Moscow, ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6 Russia Phone. (095) 203-2940
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Четверг, 30 ноября 2017, 1:53 +03:00 от John Grehan <
>>>>   calabar.john at gmail.com >:
>>>>
>>>> As always, the devil is in the details. I had one colleague point out to
>>>> me
>>>> that "A problem would be rejection, based on professional disagreement,
>>>> but
>>>> masquerading as 'doesn't meet the standards of the journal or doesn't
>>>> reflect good science'".
>>>>
>>>> John Grehan
>>>>
>>>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>   www.avast.com < http://www.avast.com >
>>>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:57 PM, John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick,
>>>>>
>>>>> I could not have said it better. I quite agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Richard Jensen < rjensen at saintmarys.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I review a manuscript and indicate that it is not acceptable for
>>>>>> publication, I do not see that as suppression. What I am saying is that
>>>>>> the research, as reported, doesn't meet the standards of the journal or
>>>>>> doesn't reflect good science. The review I provide is intended to
>>>> inform
>>>>>> the author(s) of the reasons for my decision and provide suggestions
>>>> for
>>>>>> improving the research design or the submitted manuscript. I am not
>>>>>> suppressing anything - I am simply trying to make sure that what is
>>>>>> published meets that standards of the journal and of good (however
>>>> defined)
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am aware that some reviewers reject certain manuscripts for personal
>>>>>> and/or professional disagreements with the authors. That is an act of
>>>>>> suppression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:57 AM, John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for that thoughtful reflection. Perhaps that distinction
>>>>>>> applies as you say, but if as a reviewer of an article I find that in
>>>> my
>>>>>>> opinion (and based on explicit criteria) that the work is inadequate
>>>> for
>>>>>>> publication then am I not suppressing publication? In technical
>>>> papers such
>>>>>>> decisions are perhaps not so troublesome and journals are now often
>>>>>>> providing subcategories such as acceptable with minor or major
>>>> revision. It
>>>>>>> gets a little more tricky when one is writing concept papers (such as
>>>> on
>>>>>>> evolutionary, biogeographic, systematic theory) where, at least in my
>>>> past
>>>>>>> experience, publication is determined by vote of reviewers (so quite a
>>>>>>> number of editors will just accept the majority vote regardless of
>>>> merits).
>>>>>>> And then you have journals with editors who have previously declared
>>>>>>> against publication of particular views. So perhaps the critical
>>>> issue is
>>>>>>> to what extent opportunities to publish are prevented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Grehan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>   www.avast.com < http://www.avast.com >
>>>>>>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>>>>>> <#m_1773326307339659558_m_-695097217965897227_m_-81572663594
>>>> 9305107_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Richard Jensen <
>>>>   rjensen at saintmarys.edu >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not believe the situation you describe is an act of suppression,
>>>>>>>> in the usual meaning of the word (to inhibit, keep secret, or
>>>> prevent the
>>>>>>>> use or revelation of). When you make the choice, you are not
>>>> preventing
>>>>>>>> anyone else from making the alternative choice. The fact that you,
>>>>>>>> yourself, may use both alternatives is evidence that you are not
>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>> prevent anyone else making the same choice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't disagree with you that suppression has, and still does, occur
>>>>>>>> in science - just that your example is not an act of suppression.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:25 AM, John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In response to my earlier comment about suppression of works I
>>>>>>>>> received an
>>>>>>>>> off list response asserting that I was referring to a particular
>>>> group
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> "thieves". So I would state here that my comments were about the
>>>> fact
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> suppression as part of science. It was not to suggest any position
>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> right or wrong of such suppression. Perhaps my comment about it
>>>>>>>>> suppression becoming 'respectable' would have a negative inference
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> suppression. As far as I am concerned, it is a case by case issue.
>>>>>>>>> Naturally in the instance that affects my work I am in disagreement
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> the suppression while others find it fully justified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On a taxonomic level I have the situation over whether the ending of
>>>>>>>>> species names follow gender. In some major works they do not. In
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>> I follow that, in other cases I do not (so I guess I am inconsistent
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> unscientific). In either case I am suppressing one of the
>>>> alternatives.
>>>>>>>>> John Grehan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>>>>>>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>   www.avast.com < http://www.avast.com >
>>>>>>>>> < https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
>>>>>>>>> =link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>>>>>>>>>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>>>>>>>>>   taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years,
>>>>>>>>> 1987-2017.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Richard Jensen, Professor Emeritus
>>>>>>>> Department of Biology
>>>>>>>> Saint Mary's College
>>>>>>>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Richard Jensen, Professor Emeritus
>>>>>> Department of Biology
>>>>>> Saint Mary's College
>>>>>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>>>>   http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>>>>   taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>
>>>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Jensen, Professor Emeritus
>>> Department of Biology
>>> Saint Mary's College
>>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list