[Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression
James Edwards
jimanneedwards at mac.com
Sun Sep 5 22:49:12 CDT 2021
Tell that to a mammalogist!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 5, 2021, at 7:06 PM, John Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
> Ha ha! Good fable. But a bit misplaced here since we are not discussing
> beliefs (whether panbiogeography, dispersalism, speed of light as a
> constant etc), but how we get to those beliefs (which is science). So it
> does not matter whether the grass is believed to be blue or green, but the
> basis for either choice. No room for lions or donkeys in science.
>
> Cheers, John
>
>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 8:15 PM Ivie, Michael via Taxacom <
>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ziv,
>> DON'T ARGUE WITH DONKEYS (Fable)
>>
>> The donkey said to the tiger:
>> - "The grass is blue".
>>
>> The tiger replied:
>> - "No, the grass is green."
>>
>> The discussion heated up, and the two decided to submit him to
>> arbitration, and for this they went before the lion, the King of the Jungle.
>>
>> Already before reaching the forest clearing, where the lion was sitting on
>> his throne, the donkey began to shout:
>> - "His Highness, is it true that the grass is blue?".
>>
>> The lion replied:
>> - "True, the grass is blue."
>>
>> The donkey hurried and continued:
>> - "The tiger disagrees with me and contradicts and annoys me, please
>> punish him."
>>
>> The king then declared:
>> - "The tiger will be punished with 5 years of silence."
>>
>> The donkey jumped cheerfully and went on his way, content and repeating:
>> - "The Grass Is Blue"...
>>
>> The tiger accepted his punishment, but before he asked the lion:
>> - "Your Majesty, why have you punished me?, after all, the grass is green."
>>
>> The lion replied:
>> - "In fact, the grass is green."
>>
>> The tiger asked:
>> - "So why are you punishing me?".
>>
>> The lion replied:
>> - "That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue
>> or green. The punishment is because it is not possible for a brave and
>> intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with a donkey, and on
>> top of that come and bother me with that question."
>>
>> The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not
>> care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and
>> illusions. Never waste time on arguments that don't make sense... There are
>> people who, no matter how much evidence and evidence we present to them,
>> are not in the capacity to understand, and others are blinded by ego,
>> hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are
>> not.
>>
>> When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet are
>> worth more.
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>>
>> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>>
>> US Post Office Address:
>> Montana Entomology Collection
>> Marsh Labs, Room 50
>> PO Box 173145
>> Montana State University
>> Bozeman, MT 59717
>> USA
>>
>> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
>> Montana Entomology Collection
>> Marsh Labs, Room 50
>> 1911 West Lincoln Street
>> Montana State University
>> Bozeman, MT 59718
>> USA
>>
>> (406) 994-4610<tel:(406)%20994-4610> (voice)
>> (406) 994-6029<tel:(406)%20994-6029> (FAX)
>> mivie at montana.edu
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Taxacom <taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> on behalf of John
>> Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 1:50 PM
>> To: Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
>> Cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] panbiogeography suppression
>>
>> Ziv,
>>
>> Please specify how the 'case studies' stand up to scrutiny and subsequent
>> publication response. Then I will be happy to get down to specifics.
>> You repeated these claims so it is incumbent upon you to draw attention to
>> the specifics of the case studies that you find to be solid and explain how
>> they are (especially that one about resisting the adoption of new evidence
>> - you show that this is not a tall tale). Otherwise I am just guessing and
>> I am not into doing that.
>>
>> Cheers, John
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 3:39 PM Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>> If you want specifics to respond to, how about any of the case studies in
>>> Waters et al, not just the summary quotations?
>>>
>>> I'll reiterate: I accept that I am backing off from this conversation,
>> and
>>> accept whatever negative impression that leaves of me to the readers
>> here.
>>> As I said, it was my mistake to enter the debate over panbiogeography
>>> since that was ancillary to my actual point.
>>> I feel I've sufficiently expressed what my problems were with your
>>> statement.
>>> Have a great day.
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021, 10:22 John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ziv, you might appreciate more specific content than "rubbish," but you
>>>> might consider the converse and make your accusations more specific as
>>>> well. When you just post accusations or characterizations without detail
>>>> and reasoned argument, what kind of response can you expect. I said that
>>>> the particular claim is rubbish. You need to demonstrate otherwise. It's
>>>> all very well for you to post claims without substance and then back off
>>>> with the excuse that further 'back and forth' would not be
>> constructive. I
>>>> think it would be really constructive to know the basis for your
>> support of
>>>> the claims that you post. Otherwise you give the appearance of sounding
>> off
>>>> without responsibility for your posts. Its quite bizarre (to me) that
>> you
>>>> would repeat, for example, a claim that panbiogeography has been
>>>> "overwhelmingly resistant to adopting new evidence" without a shred of
>>>> evidence. I think I am fully justified in saying that the claim is
>>>> absolute rubbish. But as a courtesy to you I will give a specific
>> answer in
>>>> support of that response with respect to the recent Galapagos paper that
>>>> cites new tectonic evidence that is so new that I don't think any other
>>>> biogeographers have yet made reference to it. So how about coughing
>>>> something up of substance?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, John
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:31 AM Ziv Lieberman <zlieberman at ucdavis.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>> I have indeed formed my own opinion of panbiogeography from reading the
>>>>> literature beyond just critique.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was in error to engage in criticism of panbiogeography per se in this
>>>>> conversation. My intention was not to foment debate about its merits or
>>>>> drawbacks, but rather to highlight what I consider to be an
>> inappropriate
>>>>> and potentially damaging analogy in the context of social
>> responsibility,
>>>>> viz. "Māori science." John has indicated that he thinks it was an
>>>>> appropriate way to express his point; I have indicated that I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not interested in further back and forth about these points, as I
>>>>> don't think it will be constructive for either of us, and this specific
>>>>> debate has been rehashed sufficiently in this group.
>>>>>
>>>>> For what it's worth, I appreciate that your responses have more
>> specific
>>>>> content than "rubbish," whether or not I agree with you at the end of
>> the
>>>>> day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ziv
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021, 23:17 Michael Heads <m.j.heads at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ziv, you write that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ’… as a field it [panbiogeography] has been overwhelmingly resistant
>> to
>>>>>> adopting new evidence…’.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you read any actual panbiog, or just critique? Our publications
>>>>>> are full of reference to new evidence, especially new geology and
>> molecular
>>>>>> phylogenies – see, for example, the more than 4000 publications
>> referred to
>>>>>> in my 3 books cited below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ’… as a field it [panbiog] has been overwhelmingly resistant to…
>>>>>> responding to criticisms… [the] most vocal proponents [of panbiog]
>>>>>> consistently choose not to respond to these points…’. When have we
>> chosen
>>>>>> not to respond to criticism? Which criticisms have we not responded
>> to?
>>>>>> We’ve published hundreds of pages responding to criticism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ’… as a field it [panbiog] has been overwhelmingly resistant to…
>>>>>> adapting to nuance…’. What does this mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘[panbiog is] a "research program" which fails to meet the criteria of
>>>>>> established scientific rigor in specific, demonstrable ways…’. Which
>>>>>> criteria? Do you really think institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge,
>>>>>> Berkeley etc. would publish it, or thousands of papers would cite it,
>> if it
>>>>>> didn’t meet the usual standards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t believe everything you read – Waters et al. (2013) either
>> haven’t
>>>>>> read panbiog or they are simply making up stuff. For example, they
>> claim
>>>>>> that ‘…the panbiogeographic approach involves little more than mapping
>>>>>> species distributions and drawing lines (tracks) connecting them’. If
>> this
>>>>>> were correct, no-one would call for its suppression. Of course, the
>> claim
>>>>>> is completely untrue – see, for example, the detailed integration of
>>>>>> biogeography with tectonics carried out in panbiog analyses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Heads
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 3:13 PM Ziv Lieberman via Taxacom <
>>>>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881045511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Kh5rLC5mTcwz5WTI27qh7i8Q4BJNug6rR0LAtI4Ia3g%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881045511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7kaNrDA48Nd6npaDmOjaXNQNSjiskyfr4jvfwi8JmNE%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881045511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Kh5rLC5mTcwz5WTI27qh7i8Q4BJNug6rR0LAtI4Ia3g%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881045511%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7kaNrDA48Nd6npaDmOjaXNQNSjiskyfr4jvfwi8JmNE%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity for about 34 years,
>>>>>>> 1987-2021.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dunedin, New Zealand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My books:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC,
>>>>>> Boca Raton FL. 2017.
>>>>>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FBiogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand%2FHeads%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781498751872&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yiohVn2aSyr20dQHgvB12l2mi%2BI6Nwt2gudkj3NcJss%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Biogeography of Australasia: A molecular analysis*. Cambridge
>>>>>> University Press, Cambridge. 2014.
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2F9781107041028&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=RhXN%2F6AhsKb8NYmaP8Ubdae1VDApaJw3qX%2FfrtXjqdc%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California
>>>>>> Press, Berkeley. 2012.
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucpress.edu%2Fbook.php%3Fisbn%3D9780520271968&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cZvmCyarKV%2FnMf7IfsWYWKkZp0mB3123ifAlwdP3jGQ%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University
>>>>>> Press, New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
>>>>>>
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Fmeop%2F8nlvXj3kofM731c8%2FQUtiDgwsLQfNYoLWFhFE%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>> <
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC%26dq%3Dpanbiogeography%26source%3Dgbs_navlinks_s&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=vpfpAhfaE%2F3LpZnWxpsJ%2FcCNQ3RqNOMCSyhYh6lsrno%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.nhm.ku.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftaxacom&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BkFyH1cFe0WgVBUF5I6dKLECfEPaq67Wc1mo4VquhdQ%3D&reserved=0
>> 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:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmivie%40montana.edu%7Ca13405bfafce414b90cd08d970a68ad6%7C324aa97a03a644fc91e43846fbced113%7C0%7C0%7C637664682881055512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tbJ8zWdMKFfCql0xu31VVXp53VbSDz2SX8VkzE6ychA%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> 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.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list