[Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression

[JF Mate]

John, you are offering nothing new that can convince the rest of the field
that you are correct. The argument over panbiogeography is not entirely
disimilar to the Ptolomeic epicycles. There are better, simpler models that
can account for biogeographic patterns without upending the whole field and
that is why biogeography has moved one.

Best

Jason

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021, 13:20 John Grehan, <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> Comments below bold text.
>
> *Science is falsifiability through evidence and Croizatian*
>
> *panbiogeography is pretty much the opposite in many cases (it is*
>
> *cherry picking). *
>
> So you say.
>
> *I (and most taxonomists I believe) have no issue with*
>
> *articles that collect "patterns" which are a priori consistent with*
>
> *geological processes. That is the bread and butter of biogeography *
>
> But panbiogeography is not about collecting patterns that are consistent
> with geological processes! It is about matching biological patterns with
> tectonic structures (tectonic patterns) that are responsible for geological
> processes.
>
> *but it needs to be tested.*
>
> Tectonic correlations are a matter of empirical record.
>
> *When it becomes "not science" is when patterns are rammed down the throat
> in spite of other evidence,*
>
> So you say.
>
> *which invariably is disregarded as "defective".*
>
> Not specific, so cannot comment.
>
> *This makes it pseudo-science.*
>
> Uninformative
>
> *If your patterns are incongruent with other evidence then they are
> doubtful*
>
> If?
>
> *and when inconsistent with all other evidence*
>
> such as?
>
> Cheers, John
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:07 PM JF Mate via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>> "Maori science". Unpack that John. As Ziv had said, other than the call to
>> journals to reject papers at face value the rest of their article is spot
>> on. Science is falsifiability through evidence and Croizatian
>> panbiogeography is pretty much the opposite in many cases (it is
>> cherrypicking). I (and most taxonomists I believe) have no issue with
>> articles that collect "patterns" which are a priori consistent with
>> geological processes. That is the bread and butter of biogeography but it
>> needs to be tested. When it becomes "not science" is when patterns are
>> rammed down the throat in spite of other evidence, which invariably is
>> disregarded as "defective". This makes it pseudo-science. If your patterns
>> are incongruent with other evidence then they are doubtful and when
>> inconsistent with all other evidence then it is, lacking other evidence,
>> wrong. Accept that and you will find people more receptive.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Sat., 4 Sep. 2021, 07:57 John Grehan via Taxacom, <
>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> 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.
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>