[Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression

[Ziv Lieberman]

Well, as always, I'd appreciate any response to the specifics of Waters et
al beyond disagreements, denials and "rubbish," but I know better than to
expect such. From the actual details in Waters et al, their points are
solid, and those familiar with the literature can judge their merits for
themselves.  Interesting that the "vindication" you reference makes no
mention of the panbiogeographic program and uses analyses I've seen you
dismiss out of hand when they indicate non-vicariance results. Telling as
well that you frame this as a "competition" of research programs. I wasn't
aware that we are competing; perhaps I'm still young and naive in taking
Waters et al and similar criticisms as a concern for responsible scientific
practice in the interest of finding and testing truths, not winning an
obscure game.
I suppose there is no need to call for suppression of panbiogeography; its
most stalwart adherents are doing a fine job of ensuring its obsolesence.
In any case, I've made my point about how to choose to discuss this matter,
and my statements aren't really to convince you of anything but to
demonstrate to other readers of this list that at least some of us are
aware of the potential problems with the oblivious co-option of other
issues in your letter, and that your tone and style aren't representative
of the taxonomic community at large.


On Fri, Sep 3, 2021, 19:51 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Ziv, My comments below the bold text.
>
> “*Recommending caution in the implicit endorsement of a "research
> program" which fails to meet the criteria of established scientific rigor
> in specific, demonstrable ways,*
>
> No one has established that panbiogeography fails to meet “the” criteria
> of established scientific rigor in specific demonstrable ways”
>
> *and whose most vocal proponents consistently choose not to respond to
> these points, is not the same.”*
>
> Not true that “most vocal proponents consistently choose not to respond to
> these points, is not the same.”
>
> “*Yes, Waters et al. go beyond recommending caution, a step I think is
> too far”*
>
> Good, we agree on that.
>
> “*There are several problems here. One is that your ethical argument
> seems to be "no suppression of ideas is ever acceptable in science," which
> is quite appealing but doesn't hold water. “*
>
> Actually my concern is the suppression of competing research programs, not
> just individual ideas.
>
> “*Some ideas are invalid, i.e., unfalsifiable, inconsistent, dogmatic,
> and so forth.”*
>
> Sure, including many that are regularly published nevertheless.
>
> *The system we have arrived at to disentangle such ideas from those which
> may be wrong, but are valid, is peer review.*
>
> It's what we have sure, but it's not a panacea.
>
> *I read Waters et al. (2013) as an opinion that, for explicit and
> demonstrable reasons, panbiogeography has shown itself to fall in the realm
> of the untestable, inconsistent, and dogmatic, and should therefore be
> treated as invalid during the review process barring modification of the
> evidence presented to meet these standards.*
>
> Sure – that is their argument and I have no problem with their making that
> argument or getting it published.
>
> *Read their conclusion again. They don't opine that panbiogeography is
> invalid intrinsically, but as it is conducted and has been conducted,*
>
> All I am concerned with here is that they call for suppression of a
> competing research program.
>
> “*and that additionally as a field it has been overwhelmingly resistant
> to adopting new evidence, responding to criticisms, or adapting to nuance.”*
>
> rubbish
>
> *In other words, panbiogeography should be suppressed so long as it
> remains dogmatic and non-reproducible.*
>
> But they never establish that to be the case.
>
> *Again, I actually disagree with their call for blanket suppression of
> panbiogeography;*
>
> Good.
>
> *To me, Waters et al. suggest that panbiogeography is not being treated
> with the same stringency as other science in review.*
>
> Suggesting is not the same as demonstrating.
>
> *"As presented in recent studies, the panbiogeographic approach involves
> little more than mapping species distributions and drawing lines (tracks)
> connecting them.”*
>
> Not true.
>
> *As early as 1989. . .there were calls for panbiogeography to become more
> quantitative. . .*
>
> Quantification of itself is not necessarily the same as validation. One
> can invent a 'quantitative' approach for anything, including imagined
> centers of origin and dispersal. That does not make them necessarily real.
> Anyway, there are quantified approaches to panbigoeography.
>
> *but the approach has remained broadly qualitative and lacking in
> reproducibility" (p.1)*
>
> That might be what they claim.
>
> *". .for any rigorous scientific approach. . . the results should wherever
> possible be validated by independent data.*
>
> Whatever 'independent' data is. Interestingly in this respect
> panbiogeography has been validated by 'independent' data such as with the
> novel tectonic predictions (made before they were geologically
> corroborated) and also note the recent posting about the role of tectonic
> uplift.
>
> *In contrast, panbiogeographers have proposed scenarios that seemingly
> dismiss all other data regarding the history of life on earth" (p. 2)*
>
> 'Seemingly' – notice the weasel words. Panbiogeography does not dismiss
> any data. To the contrary.
>
> *"When panbiogeographic hypotheses. . . conflict with data from geology,
> paleontology and molecular genetics. . . panbiogeographers tend to dismiss
> these other information sources as unreliable" (p.2).*
>
> Not true. A fabrication.
>
> Cheers, John
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 8:57 PM Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I suppose to a degree it is a matter of personal opinion. I
>> personally believe that censorship or suppression based on race, ethnicity,
>> national origin, and other identities are issues of social justice, and I
>> don't understand how they aren't. Recommending caution in the implicit
>> endorsement of a "research program" which fails to meet the criteria of
>> established scientific rigor in specific, demonstrable ways, and whose most
>> vocal proponents consistently choose not to respond to these points, is not
>> the same. Yes, Waters et al. go beyond recommending caution, a step I think
>> is too far, but the journal publishing this paper is not the same as
>> adopting their recommendations.
>>
>> There are several problems here. One is that your ethical argument seems
>> to be "no suppression of ideas is ever acceptable in science," which is
>> quite appealing but doesn't hold water. Some ideas are invalid, i.e.,
>> unfalsifiable, inconsistent, dogmatic, and so forth. The system we have
>> arrived at to disentangle such ideas from those which may be wrong, but are
>> valid, is peer review. I read Waters et al. (2013) as an opinion that, for
>> explicit and demonstrable reasons, panbiogeography has shown itself to fall
>> in the realm of the untestable, inconsistent, and dogmatic, and should
>> therefore be treated as invalid during the review process* barring
>> modification of the evidence presented to meet these standards*. Read
>> their conclusion again. They don't opine that panbiogeography is invalid
>> intrinsically, but as it is conducted and has been conducted, and that
>> additionally as a field it has been overwhelmingly resistant to adopting
>> new evidence, responding to criticisms, or adapting to nuance. In other
>> words, panbiogeography should be suppressed *so long as it remains
>> dogmatic and non-reproducible*. That, to me, is at least a partially
>> reasonable argument which has a place in the literature.
>> Again, I actually disagree with their call for blanket suppression of
>> panbiogeography; however, I strongly agree that tenacity and validity of
>> ideas are not the same. If we are not applying our standards of scientific
>> rigor equally across different research programs, then our checks and
>> balances have failed. To me, Waters et al. suggest that panbiogeography is
>> not being treated with the same stringency as other science in review.
>> I will provide a few quotations from Waters et al. (2013) for those who
>> may be unfamiliar with the paper in question: "As presented in recent
>> studies, the panbiogeographic approach involves little more than mapping
>> species distributions and drawing lines (tracks) connecting them. As early
>> as 1989. . .there were calls for panbiogeography to become more
>> quantitative. . . but the approach has remained broadly qualitative and
>> lacking in reproducibility" (p.1)  ". .for any rigorous scientific
>> approach. . . the results should wherever possible be validated by
>> independent data. In contrast, panbiogeographers have proposed scenarios
>> that seemingly dismiss all other data regarding the history of life on
>> earth" (p. 2) "When panbiogeographic hypotheses. . . conflict with data
>> from geology, paleontology and molecular genetics. . . panbiogeographers
>> tend to dismiss these other information sources as unreliable" (p.2).
>>
>> The other big problem, and the one which incited my response, is that the
>> comparisons you make, and the language you use to discuss this issue, are
>> important and have impact beyond semantic disagreements. As scientists, but
>> also as members of a community, it is our responsibility to consider how we
>> represent ourselves through our argumentation strategies and the words we
>> use, the context of our words in history, and their potential effects
>> beyond our intentions. Those who wish to be seen as scientifically-minded,
>> dedicated to the improvement of the global community, and supporters of
>> free exchange of ideas should engage in conversation following these
>> principles, and it is my strong opinion (yes, my personal opinion) that you
>> aren't doing so. Your points should stand on their own without the need to
>> appropriate the narrative of prejudice against a group of people who are
>> marginalized *due to the perceived nature of their existence* *or
>> intrinsic character*. Waters et al. (2013) do not suggest that
>> panbiogeography be suppressed because they don't like panbiogeographers, or
>> because they think you are an inferior sort of person, or because they
>> stand to benefit from colonization of your laboratory.  If I established a
>> Hollow Earth research program, which stands on decadesof tradition, and is
>> widely supported by people around the world (both true), it would still
>> fail to be demonstrable, reproducible, and quantifiable. A call for
>> suppression of glaphyrogeography in scientific journals would be eminently
>> reasonable.
>>
>> I am not Māori, so it's not up to me to decide if the parallels you are
>> drawing are damaging to Māori people. However, I do belong to other
>> historically and presently marginalized groups, and if you had cited a
>> hypothetical suppression of papers by Jewish authors, or queer authors, or
>> transgender authors, I would feel that you were inappropriately drawing
>> connections between my lived struggles and your situation, and it would
>> make me feel less welcome in the scientific community.
>> I am uncomfortable being quiet when disadvantaged peoples are used as a
>> lever for unrelated arguments.
>>
>> -Ziv
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:28 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess it's a matter of personal opinion as to whether it's a relevant
>>> equivalency or not. I happen to think that it is. It's not a social justice
>>> issue at all - in my opinion. It is all about the operation of suppression
>>> in science, and that is the problem with Waters et al and the decision by
>>> the Royal Society Te Apārangi to accept suppression as being consistent
>>> with its ethics.  That is the bottom line, whether or not one thinks I have
>>> made a good or poor comparison.
>>>
>>> Cheers, John
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 6:00 PM Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apologies for the repeated message - I meant to reply to all including
>>>> the list. To reiterate:
>>>>
>>>> The fact that it is occurring doesn't make it a relevant comparison. In
>>>> fact, as I pointed out, making this false equivalency detracts from the
>>>> cause of indigenous representation.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:57 PM John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ziv,
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect you won't know about a recent attempt in NZ by some
>>>>> scientists to disconnect Maori science from other science. So I don't
>>>>> understand what is dishonest about referencing such a possibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers, John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 5:29 PM Ziv Lieberman via Taxacom <
>>>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John,
>>>>>> Your question "why not, for example, call for the suppression of Māori
>>>>>> science?" is, at best, poorly thought through, and at worst an
>>>>>> intentional,
>>>>>> dishonest conflation of issues which is deeply disrespectful. I
>>>>>> choose to
>>>>>> not infer where your intentions fall on this spectrum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I actually don't agree with the recommendations of Waters et al.
>>>>>> (2013) to not publish panbiogeographic works as a blanket policy,
>>>>>> there are
>>>>>> some obvious differences in the scenario called for in this paper and
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> hypothetical situation. Waters et al. (2013) lay out a cogent,
>>>>>> evidence-based, and highly specific criticism of the panbiogeographic
>>>>>> approach. They give explicit reference to epistemological and
>>>>>> methodological conflicts between panbiogeography and the modern
>>>>>> approach,
>>>>>> which they illustrate with particular examples. In other words, they
>>>>>> clearly justify*—*or at the very least, explain*—*their contention
>>>>>> that "as
>>>>>> it stands, panbiogeography is not a useful approach for evolutionary
>>>>>> biology" (p. 3). They provide a structure which could be responded to,
>>>>>> point by point, with evidence of your own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, no such logical structure could be erected to dismiss
>>>>>> research
>>>>>> produced by a (real or perceived) racial or ethnic group. Of course,
>>>>>> history has seen many such attempts to justify eugenics and other
>>>>>> scientific racism. But such arguments would be patently untrue, i.e.
>>>>>> unable
>>>>>> to withstand logical, scientific, and moral refutation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In summary: your choice of language and analogy degrade your point as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> whole, discredit your position as a critical thinker, and represent
>>>>>> co-option of social justice issues into an unrelated scientific
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>> In fact, the use of this analogy makes it seem like you lack an
>>>>>> understanding of the problem you are criticizing, whether that is
>>>>>> true or
>>>>>> not. This tactic also detracts from the realities of the
>>>>>> marginalization of
>>>>>> indigenous peoples, which ironically contributes to upholding the
>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>> (historical and present) exclusionism which you are taking advantage
>>>>>> of to
>>>>>> express your outrage.  You cannot behave this way while simultaneously
>>>>>> calling for scientific integrity and credibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Ziv Lieberman
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>>>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
>>>>>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>>>>>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
>>>>>> 1987-2021.
>>>>>>
>>>>>