Cranks and the politics of science.

I'm not going to apologize for my previous post, which treated a cranky paper, and the outrage machine that cranked up upon its retraction, with all the respect it deserved. However, now some Very Serious Individuals have weighed in, and some things I thought intuitively obvious aren't intuitively obvious to them. So I'll try to be serious (this isn't a good start, though).

First of all, there's a reason we specialize in science. I'm about as cross-disciplinary as it gets (biochemist who became a biophysicist who becamea chemist, who's published in all the major subdivisions of chemistry, and now does gas-phase physics; or dilettante, you choose). And at the same time, I'm leery of weighing in on the details of a field in which I'm not a specialist. Science these days is too big and complicated for that. And so the first rule for journal editors should be: don't publish stuff from outside your field. Generalist journals like Science and Nature have teams of specialist associate editors for exactly that reason. Even more specialized journals like the Journal of the American Chemical Society have inorganic chemistry editors, physical chemistry editors, organic chemistry editors, etc..

So, when the editor of a mathematics journal gets a manuscript that's supposed to model some facet of evolutionary biology, what should they do? They should refuse to consider it, and recommend it be sent to one of the several journals that cover the mathematics of evolutionary biology, where the non-mathematical aspects of the paper can also be properly reviewed.

In the present instance, the editors of Mathematical Intelligencer and the New York Journal of Mathematics did not do that. I think part of the problem is the hubris that many mathematicians and physicists have about other fields of science. It's alluded to in this cartoon, which apparently went over a lot of people's heads. The Hill preprint, and probably the paper (we don't know, though, we haven't see the actual m/s that was submitted, and it has since had an author added) appears to adopt an explicitly group selection model of evolution. The editor of a specialized journal would have known of all the issues with group selection models (this looks like an OK summary).

A statement like this

Then from one generation to the next, among subpopulations of B with comparable average attributes, those with greater variability will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability.
would set off immediate red flags to an evolutionary biologist.

And it's a fundamental flaw in the paper; the model assumes a mechanism for evolutionary change that evolutionary biologists mostly reject, except under very specific conditions. Could the model be salvaged to work without group selection? Don't know. But it sure shouldn't be published as is.

So the paper starts with a problematic model, and conclusions are drawn from it, conclusions, that, like it or not, have highly political implications, implications that are ripe for misuse by the contemporary alt-right. The journal editor hears about this, and rescinds publication. That course of action, while not ideal, at least makes up for the original decision to publish the paper.

And then the outrage machine goes into overdrive, including several people who should know better. (Pinker, FFS look at page 2 of the preprint).

Yes, it would be lovely if we could sit in our ivory towers and discuss science, disinterested from its social implications. But we can't. And in particular, we have an obligation to prevent bad science from being legitimized and then misused (good science is another, harder issue). Mostly we have a libertarian attitude; err on the side of publishing what looks like crap. If it really is crap, it will be refuted, or more likely ignored. But in this case, the crap is potentially noxious crap.

The process failed here. But it didn't fail because people applied political pressure to journal editors. It failed because the journal editors didn't do their job.

Interesting thought just occurred to me: is it even possible to have an evolutionary model to select for 'variability', without group selection? How do you have 'variability' without a group?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Benny Johnson and Turning Point USA at UNL: stealing people's stuff to own the libs

Image
The newly 'recognized' Turning Point USA UNL chapter have immediately put paid to speculation they might be any different than the other chapters of the alt-right campus freak show, by recruiting the unsavory Benny Johnson as their first speaker. Benjamin Arthur Johnson graduated from the University of Iowa in 2009. Although it's been variously reported he also has a degree in Organic Chemistry, U. Iowa seems to think he only graduated in Psychology . Since he was an honors student, I hoped to find the thesis he is supposed to have written; running that through a plagiarism checker might be a laugh riot. Unfortunately, it seems not to be in their digital repository. Johnson commenced his career with a listicle-laced gala performance of promiscuous plagiarism at Buzzfeed, which led to his firing. He stole from no fewer than 41 articles. Then, after a brief break to let the scandal die down, he got a job at IJR Review . The man has no shame; a hate click, he claims,...
Read more

Dan Whitney, aka Larry the Cable Guy, a short biography

Image
I have known of Dan Whitney, Larry the Cable Guy , longer than most people have. In the car on the way into work at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, we used to listen to one of the usual mostly-talk rock radio shows. Larry would quite regularly call in. His accent fascinated me. Probably because I’ve lived in so many places, I like to try to place accents. Larry the Cable Git's accent was vaguely southern, or was meant to be southern, but I couldn’t place it anywhere in particular in the South. In any case, he’d distorted it so much you could make out only half of what he was saying.  What he was saying was mumbled, consciously transgressive hate.  Later on, I discovered he was was born and grew up in Pawnee City Nebraska, until his preacher daddy hauled him down to Florida. It’s a long story… (1) Daddy issues Daniel Lawrence Whitney, better known by his stage name and character Larry the Cable Guy, was born on February 17, 1963 in Pawnee City, Nebraska, to the Reverend ...
Read more

The Fortenberry slaves: a prelude

Image
Toiling in the mid-morning sun, in a hot, muddy cotton field in Copiah County, in the south of Mississippi, three young African American men, brothers, aged 18, 20 and 22, hoed the rows. It was late June, 1860, and so the men were slaves. The ground was wet from yesterday’s rain, the air heavy, and the men were anxious to finish their work before the clouds gathering on the western horizon flooded the fields with another summer cloudburst. Inside the plantation house, unbeknownst to them, they were being enumerated . James R Fortenberry, the slave-holder, a man of about 35, was listing their important personal details to Elijah Peyton, Assistant Marshall. These details were three; age, gender, and race. The race was officially ‘mulatto’; at that time, and in that place, mulattos were usually the sons or daughters of a black woman raped by a white slave-holder. They had no names, as far as the United States Government was concerned. Instead they would be listed, in Peyton’s elegant,...
Read more