Lizard

Pangloss,

Well, of COURSE Behe is a research scientist. He wouldn't be a professor at a university if he weren't doing some research. The point is that he hasn't done ANY research involving ID. He attempted to have an article on ID published in some (unnamed) peer-reviewed journal and was turned down. So are many scientists. They receive recommendations for how to improve it and get it published. In Behe's case, he had provided no references or research to back up his assertions, and he disregarded the scientific method. I don't think the reviewers even bothered to give him suggestions for improvement, since he was obviously so far out of the loop that it wouldn't have done any good. The things the reviewers cited are legitimate reasons for having an article rejected by a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Now, if Behe had submitted it to Metanexus or a philosophical journal, he might have gotten it published. But he tried (and cynically, I don't think he was sincere) to get it published in a scientific journal. I think he knew it would be rejected, and perhaps that is the reason he did it. Because he used the rejection as an example of how biased the scientific "priesthood" is against ID. Well, no, actually. The scientific community requires scientific content in articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Simple, really.

RufusAtticus

Pangloss,

Looks like they have removed their accusations. (I don't see it anymore.) Have you gotten an email from them?

I think we should keep their message in this thread in case they ever try to claim they didn't make it.

~~RvFvS~~

MrDarwin

The entire issue revolves around this statement (emphasis mine):

And it's a vague statement, open to interpretion (or misinterpretation). The area he claims to have evidence for design in is biochemistry, and the area of his research is biochemistry. Make no mistake, I'm not defending the BB, their interpetation of this statement, or their tacts in general; I'm simply pointing out that the original statement is not as cut-and-dried as others seem to think. And this is precisely why I think II is infinitely superior to boards like BB; we call people on their statements, and allow them to explain, defend, or or hang themselves.

I think it's much more egregious that they claim they've never banned anybody before, when numerous people here have reported being banned.

Brian63

I could be wrong (although it's an extremely minute probability ), but when the accusation is libel, doesn't that require that the accused knew that what he/she was saying was false, or had good reason to believe it was false, but printed it anyway?

Regardless of whether Scott Page's remark was true or false, it is not clear that he knew or should have known that it is. I think they are stretching the usage of libel a bit much.

Brian

pangloss

Yes, Rufus - they sent me an email stating only that they had removed the message in question.


Of course I intend to keep the issue alive - I posted about it on my web site. I mean, I wouldn't want them to be able to lie about it or anything...

Pantera

Hee hee. I'd employ Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne myself.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Pantera

Depends on the juristiction. In Britain, for instance, it's not a defence to say that you believed the libel to be true - you have to be able to prove that it was true, and to a criminal standard of proof to boot. Not surprisingly, this results in the media being pretty reticent about making disclosures about public figures. My limited understanding of US law is that an untrue statement is only libellous if it can be shown that the person making it either knew it was untrue, or was reckless with regard to whether it was untrue or not. Canada, where the II server is currently sitting, has laws which I believe are somewhere between these two extremes.

Brian63

Regardless, I don't think "libel" is an appropriate term in this situation. That is probably reserved more for serious publications, such as newspapers, radio, etc., NOT for what is said on some Internet message board.

Again, they would be stretching the meaning of the term libel to a ridiculous extent.

Brian

pangloss

Perhaps more context would help. What I wrote in my thread-starting post was in direct response to this quote from Behe, emphasis mine:

”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components”.

Behe does not do research on the cilium or intracellular transport. I did not claim that he was not a 'research scientist'. So, even if Behe DID do research in those areas, the BB admin still was out of bounds to call me a liar.

Taken in context, my statement was not ambiguous at all, rather it was a direct response to a quote.

Biochemistry - not THAT is a vague term!

pangloss

How could they NOT know? They provide links indicating that Behe is a "research scientist". I never wrote that he was not. They then label me a liar for doing something that the typical 11-year old would have been able to see I did not do. Of course, if we look at the dictionary definition:

2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means


one sees no mention of prior knowleddge. Looks like that minute probability thing ranks up there with those abiogenesis equations...

Hmmm... I'm not sure whom you are referring to here...

It was I that accused the BB admin of libel, they called me a liar for doing something that I did not do.