Circus of the Spineless
by KrauzeAydin Örstan is a biologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pensylvania. From his blog, Snail's Tales, he runs Circus of the Spineless, a carnival featuring posts about invertebrates. For this edition of the Circus, I submitted my post, The problem with model invertebrates, which pointed to some problems with using fruit flies and nematodes as model organisms, citing data published in the scientific journal Current Biology.
Much to my disappointment, Örstan turned it down. Not because I was too late in submitting it (I submitted it almost two weeks ago), and not because of its actual content. No, Örstan's problem was with the source of my post. As he writes, at the end of the current Circus:
My policy on this blog is not to have any links in any of my posts to any creationist (including "intelligent" design) sites. Hence I turned down a submission from one such site. I offer no apologies.
Örstan did not spend any time justifying his label "creationist". In fact, as anyone reading my post would notice, it explicitly relies on the common ancestry of humans, insects, worms, and corals.
Now, I don't presume to tell Örstan which posts to feature. It's his blog, and he can use any crazy criteria he likes. But let's look closer at the mindset of this sample of the biological community: He thinks intelligent design is creationism, and he thinks material from ID supporters should be rejected as a matter of policy.
Is this one of the "peers" that will be performing the "peer review" of an eventual ID research paper?
Update November 1st: The manual trackback I left at Snail's Tales has been deleted.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:18 am
The Delicate Genius Has a Policy
In a scene from the Seinfeld episode "The Kiss Hello," George gets done seeing his physical therapist and writes out a check for $75. Chaos ensues.
Trackback by prosthesis — November 1, 2005 @ 5:18 am
November 1st, 2005 at 6:23 pm
None of this is surprising, Krauze. Recall the title of Robert Pennock's anti-ID anthology Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics", thus making the phrase 'intelligent design' little more than an adjectival phrase modifying the noun 'creationism'. To the Pennocks and Orstans of the world, ID and Creationism is nothing ,i>but IDC. As long as they can keep the word 'creation' in there somewhere, then they are free not to deal with any of the actual scientific issues raised.
And to answer your question:
I don't know if Orstan personally will be, but I have no doubt that those of his ilk are. When those that control the process define science such that ID is excluded from scientific considerationa priori then peer reviewers need not "apologize" for rejecting anything that smacks of it.
Comment by DonaldM — November 1, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
November 1st, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Wow. People should check out the comments section for beautiful illustrations of closed-mindedness and reliance on stereotype. This is definitely worth blogging about.
Comment by MikeGene — November 1, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
November 1st, 2005 at 9:46 pm
How is it that you have a problem being grouped into the same category as creationists? You both rely on divine intervention to explain the origins of life.
Comment by Daniel — November 1, 2005 @ 9:46 pm
November 1st, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Hello Daniel,
I think you have a little to learn yet.
Comment by Dane Parker — November 1, 2005 @ 9:51 pm
November 1st, 2005 at 10:16 pm
It's a blog, for the Designer's sake!
Do I really need explain the difference between a blog and a peer-reviewed journal?
Also note the word "eventual." With a single word, this IDer has admitted his movement is trying to force something on public school science classes that has yet t…
Trackback by The Uncredible Hallq — November 1, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
November 1st, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Of course it's just a blog. But it would help if you read Krauze's blog. He writes:
See? Krauze knows it's just a blog. His point? Well, he spelled it out clearly:
What makes the incident so interesting is how Dr. Örstan gives us such a clear look at his approach to things.
Comment by MikeGene — November 1, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:31 am
I'm not the first one to wonder much less notice why it is so common for intellectuals to be blind to their own prejudice and stereotyping. I think it's because if you're an intellectual, and especially if you're one of those Olympians of critical thinking, a scientist, you aren't supposed to be capable of such crude foibles. In other words, what prevents Orstan from seeing his rush to judgment in Krauze's case is good old-fashioned pride, and perhaps the practical need to be thought well of by his peers and colleagues.
It just goes to show humility is a necessary intellectual virtue.
Comment by roy w. — November 2, 2005 @ 12:31 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:45 am
It's quite instructive to take 5 minutes for the followin exercise.
First, go back and re-read Krauze's blog. Don't rely on memory; take a couple of minutes to re-read it and come back.
Okay, now that the blog is fresh in your mind, consider the comments from the Spineless site:
AÖrstan said…
AÖrstan said…
PZ Myers said…
Mrs. T said:
Scienceastruth said:
Amazing.
Comment by MikeGene — November 2, 2005 @ 12:45 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:00 am
Why are you surprised that you get censored the way this site censors?
The irony lode is quite significant.
Comment by edarrell — November 2, 2005 @ 1:00 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:34 am
edarrell wrote:
"Why are you surprised that you get censored the way this site censors?"
Ed, go read Örstan's comments about graffiti. The issue isn't about censorship.
Comment by Krauze — November 2, 2005 @ 2:34 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:27 am
edarrell, are you able to get the point of this post?
Comment by inunison — November 2, 2005 @ 5:27 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:49 am
Krauze and I had an interesting back-and-forth about his Intelligent Design carnival, which is called "Meeting of Minds", two and a half months ago. Here's a link to the comment thread:
Get ready for the next Meeting of Minds
Here's part of what Krauze had to say about including dissenting viewpoints:
Hi Matthew,
"If 'Meeting of Minds' doesn't want to go to the trouble of accepting dissenting viewpoints, then that indicates that 'Meeting of Minds' is not very interested in doing science.'"
It's a carnival, intended for fun, laughter and jollyness. I don't see Meeting of Minds as "doing science", and I honestly don't hope anyone else does.
However, seeing as you have your own blog, here's a suggestion: Why don't you start a carnival the way you would want it to be, open to sober and substantive posts for and against ID? I"ll volunter to host it after you, and then we can get The Panda's Thumb to host it the third time, and so on.
"Hopefully, when you decide you're ready to face critics, you won't have to deal with too much bad faith and agita. You might actually be surprised at how much you learn from your critics, and conclude that your fear of debate was overblown."
Mike and I both have experience discussing with many critics, as our posts here and on the ARN Board shows. If you think either of us have a "fear of debate", you're sorely mistaken.
And then there's this quote from Krauze's last comment in the thread:
[Matthew:] "Well, obviously, you are not conducting experiments, and probably not showcasing any scientific-type research. But if ID theory is not about science, then what is it about exactly?"
[Krauze:] Read what I wrote again: "I don't see Meeting of Minds as 'doing science'…". Maybe ID will one day evolve into something which can be called science, but it's not something I expect a carnival to contribute much to.
I agree with Krauze that his dispute with Aydin Orstan is not entirely about censorship. But why exactly does he hold Mr. Orstan to a different standard than his own carnival, "Meeting of Minds"
And more to the point, "Circus of the Spineless" is a science carnival on a science blog. If Krauze has freely admitted that Intelligent Design is not science, then why is he so offended by a science blogger's declining to link to Intelligent Design blogs and articles?
Comment by Matthew Goggins — November 2, 2005 @ 10:49 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:13 am
Krauze's submission for the Circus was on topic and it didn't say anything about design. A submission to Meeting of the Minds that takes a negative approach to design wouldn't exactly be on topic. It'd be like having a science submission at the storyblogging carnival or an atheist submission at the Christian carnival.
Comment by macht — November 2, 2005 @ 11:13 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:35 am
Hi Macht,
Thank you for your reply.
"A submission to Meeting of the Minds that takes a negative approach to design wouldn't exactly be on topic."
If Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, then any approach to ID, be it positive, negative, or neutral would be very much on topic.
Scientific theories are meant to be tested and thoroughly criticized. I talk about it in this comment here:
"How scientific theories get established"
If you have time to read it, I would like to know what you think. Please consider the following question in particular: Do you still think "a negative approach to design" would be off-topic?
If you still do, it seems to me that you are conceding that Intelligent Design is not actually a scientific theory.
Thanks again,
Matthew
Comment by Matthew Goggins — November 2, 2005 @ 11:35 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:36 am
Let me just add to what Macht said, that the revealing part of Örstan's post isn't that he didn't link to my post in a particular post of his, but that he has a policy of not linking to "creationist" sites, regardless of the merits of the posts found there. I do not have such a policy, and when reading through my posts you'll find plenty of links to ID critics' sites, when appropriate.
Comment by Krauze — November 2, 2005 @ 11:36 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:58 am
Krauze,
Orstan stifles debate on his blog by refusing to go where Intelligent Design leads.
You stifle debate on your blog by refusing to link to critical posts in your Intelligent Design carnival.
You both have the unquestioned right to set whatever limits you please on your blogging and your carnival-ing. Orstan chooses tighter limits than you. I see a difference of degree, and not a qualitative difference.
Am I wrong?
Comment by Matthew Goggins — November 2, 2005 @ 11:58 am
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Dane Parker,
Are you suggesting that intelligent design DOESN'T invoke divine intervention? If that's what you're suggesting, then please, illuminate me as to how you can advocate ID in the absense of an Intelligent Designer.
Comment by Daniel — November 2, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 pm
I was under the impression that the purpose of Meeting of the Minds was to highlight pro-ID blog posts around the web. Similarly, the Circus of the Spineless is to highlight various posts about invertabrates. A post that was anti-ID or a post that was about vertabrates would be off-topic. Whether ID is scientific seems entirely beside the point.
Comment by macht — November 2, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Macht,
Whether ID is scientific seems entirely beside the point.
Do you think Intelligent Design is scientific?
If yes, then why exclude posts that are critical from Meeting of the Minds?
If no, then why submit ID posts to a science blog?
Bonus question: I understand that you disagree with me, you have made that very clear. But why dismiss my comments by characterizing them as "entirely beside the point"
Comment by Matthew Goggins — November 2, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Do you think Intelligent Design is scientific?
I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific.
If yes, then why exclude posts that are critical from Meeting of the Minds?
The same reason you would exclude posts about vertabrates from the Circus of the Spineless – because that's not the point of Meeting of the Minds. Is this so hard to understand?
But why dismiss my comments by characterizing them as "entirely beside the point"?
Because it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not. If you had a carnival called "Intelligent Design – is it scientific or not?" then you might have a point.
Comment by macht — November 2, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Macht,
You are criticizing Mr. Orstan for not linking to Intelligent Design posts or blogs. Since Mr. Orstan's blog and carnival are both about science, a very strong and reasonable basis for your criticism would be if Intelligent Design were supposed to be a scientific theory.
You seem almost willing to admit this when you say,"I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific." But for some reason, you feel compelled to backtrack and insist (in your last two comments), "it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not."
Macht, it is not entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not. That is precisely the point.
If ID is scientific, then Mr. Orstan should link to it and discuss it. If ID is not scientific, then Mr. Orstan should feel no obligation to link to it or discuss it. Why? Because he is a scientitst with a science blog and a science carnival.
Furthermore, if Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, then Krauze should not decline to link to critical posts in Meeting of Minds. If Intelligent Design is supposed to be science, then Krauze should welcome and encourage critical posts. That is how science advances.
Is this so hard to understand?
Why are you asking a rude question?
Are you being defensive, or have I written something offensive?
Comment by Matthew Goggins — November 2, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Mr. Orstan has a policy of not accepting any post whatsoever from a pro-ID blog, whether the post is about ID or not, whether the post is scientific or not. That's the problem.
You seem almost willing to admit this when you say,"I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific." But for some reason, you feel compelled to backtrack and insist (in your last two comments), "it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not."
I don't know why you say I'm backtracking. When I said "I don't think there is anything about ID that disqualifies it from being scientific" I said so because that's what I think. When I said "it is entirely beside the point as to whether ID is scientific or not" it's because it is beside the point. Those two sentences really have nothing to do with each other. The former was an answer I gave to a question you asked (which really had nothing to do with the discussion). The latter is just a fact about this whole situation.
"Furthermore, if Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, then Krauze should not decline to link to critical posts in Meeting of Minds."
Uuuugggggghhhh! Re-read my last post.
Why? Because he is a scientitst with a science blog and a science carnival.
Then he should reject each individual post based on whether it is scientific or not. He should reject a post because he has some policy about who wrote the post or what blog the post came from. It's as simple as that.
Why are you asking a rude question?
I didn't mean it to be rude. I'm literally asking if what I'm saying is so hard to understand. I thought I explained it clearly but you aren't understanding. Both carnivals have a purpose, a reason for existing. If a blog post doesn't fit in with that purpose, of course the host site can reject the post. But if they reject the post based on some rule about where or who the post comes from, then that's ridiculous.
And I don't think you've done anything offensive, you just haven't engaged anything I've said. You haven't commented at all on the purposes of the carnivals.
Comment by macht — November 2, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Macht,
I didn't mean it to be rude.
Thanks for not being rude.
I think part of the problem here is that when people have very different opinions, it can take a while to get to the point where each person thoroughly understands what the other person is saying and why he is saying it.
Mr. Orstan has a policy of not accepting any post whatsoever from a pro-ID blog, whether the post is about ID or not, whether the post is scientific or not. That's the problem.
That would be a problem, only if Intelligent Design were a scientific theory.
Let's say, hypothetically speaking, someone from a pro-ID blog submits a scientific post to Mr. Orstan's blog or carnival.
Presumably Mr. Pro-ID is submitting this scientific post in order to initiate a debate about ID. Mr. Pro-ID is very likely submitting this scientific post in order to lead whatever discussion Mr. Orstan is having away from science and towards a non-scientific topic (the non-scientific topic of Intelligent Design).
Now this is the point where you would probably want to object that Intelligent Design is in fact a theory that could be considered a scientific theory. And if you are correct, then Mr. Orstan would be rejecting out of hand a theory that could be scientific.
But you see, your objection is based on the alleged fact that Intelligent Design could be a scientific theory. The status of ID as science or not science has a direct bearing on whether Mr. Orstan wants to link to Mr. Pro-ID.
Moreover, not only is Mr. Orstan convinced that ID is not science — Krauze himself says the same thing! Granted, Krauze wants Intelligent Design theory to develop into a scientific theory, but he admits and asserts that it has not yet reached that point.
More-moreover, it is not clear to me how Krauze's wishes for ID theory are going to be realized if the proponents of ID theory are reluctant to encourage a full-throated debate about the merits of their theory. That is why it is not clear to me why "Meeting of Minds" should be limited to non-critical posts. Are pro-ID'ers demanding to be heard on scientists' sites, while maintaining a protective bubble around their own carnivals? It is not clear to me how to resolve this apparent double standard.
Thank you, Macht, for your thoughtful response. While I can't agree with you that I "just haven't engaged anything [you've] said", I can understand your frustration at my dogged refusal to agree with you.
Maybe by the time this comment thread ends, we will both have good feelings about our respective positions.
Cheers,
Matthew
Comment by Matthew Goggins — November 2, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:01 pm
I'm not sure what else I can say. I still don't think you've responded to what I've actually said. The only thing you've said about the purpose of the Meeting of the Minds is that you think it should have a different purpose. That, of course, doesn't say anything about the actual purpose, which is what we are discussing.
But anyway, your position seems to be that anything coming from a pro-ID blog is unscientific and therefore shouldn't be part of a scientific Circus (not that the Circus of the Spineless requires that something be scientific or even educational – they'd accept a story about or a picture of an invertebrate, for Pete's sake – that in itself is enough for me to claim that whether or not ID is scientific is beside the point). The only thing I'm not certain about in all of this is whether you are committing a circumstantial ad hom fallacy or a guilt by association fallacy in arguing this.
Comment by macht — November 2, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:03 pm
As Krauze pointed out, the issue has nothing to do with censorship. So, let's put those waving hands down and consider the point of importance.
Krauze writes an essay that argues our model organisms have provided a skewed perspective on evolution. He briefly discusses a recent paper where "The authors concluded that gene loss had been a substantial factor in evolution, and that "the ancestral metazoan is likely to have been much more complex than was previously imagined." So he appropriately notes that this supports a trend he has blogged about previously "“ "The machinery found in higher organisms is turning out to be way older than anyone expected." He then follows with a prediction.
There is nothing "creationist" about his essay. It is not anti-evolutionary. Nor does it invoke any divine intervention. Again, this is not an opinion of mine; it's a simple fact that follows from basic skills in reading comprehension.
Yet note how the scientist from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pensylvania responded. In a purely knee-jerk fashion, he labels it "˜creationist,' thus declares it is "rubbish", and accordingly turns Krauze away. There is not a scrap of evidence to indicate that Dr. Örstan read the blog, let alone understood the argument.
What is of interest in not some petty argument about being "censored," but the clear illustration of a scientific mind that closes in Pavlovian fashion and then locks shut with simple-minded stereotypes.
The lesson is clear "“ even a modest, restrained, and supported evolutionary argument as presented by Krauze will be reflexively dismissed and labeled rather than considered in an open and fair-minded fashion. The power of stereotype was on glorious display.
Comment by MikeGene — November 2, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
November 3rd, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Hi Matthew,
I too think you have missed the point of Krauze's concern. The actual article he submitted had little to do with ID, if taken at face value. The only reason it was rejected, as was admitted by the blog owner, was that it came from an ID or creationistr oriented site. Its scientific merit was not even at issue.
That being said, I think Dr Orstan has every right to apply any standard for acceptance he pleases. It's his blog, after all. However, to assume that he would apply the same standard as a referee for a journal is unwarranted, in my opinion. That is calling his scientific integrity into question based purely on his policy regarding a blog. Hardly enough evidence to justify smearing him like that, regardless of how cavalierly he handled Krauze's submission.
KC
Comment by KC — November 3, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Hi KC,
"That being said, I think Dr Orstan has every right to apply any standard for acceptance he pleases. It's his blog, after all."
Sure. As I wrote: "Now, I don't presume to tell Örstan which posts to feature. It's his blog, and he can use any crazy criteria he likes."
"However, to assume that he would apply the same standard as a referee for a journal is unwarranted, in my opinion. That is calling his scientific integrity into question based purely on his policy regarding a blog."
What is of concern isn't some scientist's policy in handling his personal blog, but the mindset that he displayed in the process. The evidence suggests that Dr. Örstan is relying on stereotypes when reacting to ID, to the point that he labels a post relying on humans and other metazoans having descended from corals as "creationist". Those are characteristics of the Dr. Örstan who leaves his computer to put on his lab coat.
Is it possible that when entering his laboratory, Örstan locks all of his prejudices and stereotypes about ID into a separate compartment of his mind, and becomes ready to objectively weigh an eventual ID paper? Sure, anything is possible. However, there is no evidence that suggests this, and it would run counter to what we know about scientists as human beings, relying on simplified conceptions about unfamiliar territories of reality.
Comment by Krauze — November 3, 2005 @ 1:18 pm