 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ana wrote: | | It's not quite simple enough for a sound-byte answer. It is fairly simple, but you didn't go for FFT's answer, so I thought I'd give you some examples of the concept in use. I rather enjoyed reading the first one, so it's a shame you don't have time for it. |
Gravity... that is adequate? Me thinks not.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | I'd like to know why you think Guth's explanation (which you keep asking what is) somehow does violate it. |
Hint: Kinetic/Heat. |
Why can't these be countered by opposite energy? What's the problem? |
Um... because one deals with motion and the other deals with heat... ergo... 'thermo'dynamics... not just 'dynamics'.
Also, what how does gravity negate heat and nuclear decay? I don’t think you or FFT have ever gotten around to explaining how this all works. I have asked a couple times and the closest thing I have gotten is ‘gravity’ without explaining the ‘how’.
| Quote: | | I'm not going to watch the movie in any way that would reward the ones who made it. About Sternberg - I read... |
ah yes... a website that cites sources commenting on a film they found unconvincing... but at the same time ALL of them had nothing but praises for Michael Moore and his garbage ‘documentaries . So... go ahead and believe what you want Ana based on what people tell you about stuff. It is your prerogative.
| Quote: | | that he had an unpaid position that he had given notice of resignation for half a year prior to his, shall we say, gaffe. |
Excuse me. Do you have a citation for this? I have plenty of third party (unbiased findings) demonstrating that he was forced out of this position by creating a hostile work environment for him... for doing absolutely nothing wrong. He followed procedure... and people didn't like it... period... so they forced him out. Now, if you have an unbiased third party citation demonstrating something else... please share it with us.
| Quote: | | So, he left the job (if you can call it a job - it was certainly not his income source), not the other way 'round, and not even because of this little incident. |
Are you kidding me? Ruining a man's career (regardless if the position was paid or not) is no 'little incident' Ana. You know just as well as I do, in these circles, people's reputations are more important than the salary they draw. This is reality we are talking about and not some spin Talk Origins, PZ Meyer, or Lil Dicky Dawkins is saying. If you believe differently about Sternberg being forced out of this position... what type of evidence... other than 'say-so' do you have?
HERE are a few of the statements from what the Office of Independent Council for the United States of America found:
| OIC wrote: | * During our initial investigations, OSC has been able to find support for many of your allegations. However, the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation.
* Our investigation also shows that there is a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.
* A statement from one of the emails concerning this case: “These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world. Depressing. Oh, if we only still had Steve Gould to lead the counter-attack."
* Of great import is the fact that these same SI and NMNH employees immediately aligned themselves with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Our investigation shows that NCSE is a political advocacy organization dedicated to defeating any introduction of ID, creationism or religion into the American education system. In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have you investigated and discredited within the SI.
* Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms.
* There was a strategy by several managers to force you out of the SI.
* Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper in ID.
* They wanted to make it clear that you should "do the right thing and resign." This supports your allegation that you were subjected to a hostile work environment. |
Now… these are only a sampling of what was found in the Independent Councils report… there is a lot more there if you care to read. My question is, if he had resigned prior to the publication of this article, why did the folks feel the need to force him to resign? Does that make sense to you? If that was not the case, where are you getting your information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | How does Guth's explanation negate 2LoTD as FFT insists? |
The second law doesn't apply. What part of this aren't you getting?
How, in your estimation, is the second law of thermodynamics being violated by the spontaneous generation of equal parts positive and negative energy? |
FFT... Guth's theory deals with Kinetic energy.... not heat. 2LoTD deals with heat. |
I'm not a mind reader, but I think that this is why FFT said the law doesn't apply. |
No. FFT's assertion is that the sum total of energy in the universe is zero because negative energy cancels out positive energy... he never gets around to explaining how this works... he is applying Guth's theory to heat energy... that much I do know.
Also.. if 1LoTD asserts that energy is neither created or destroyed... how is it that we can have the spontaneous generation of energy period? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | It's not quite simple enough for a sound-byte answer. It is fairly simple, but you didn't go for FFT's answer, so I thought I'd give you some examples of the concept in use. I rather enjoyed reading the first one, so it's a shame you don't have time for it. |
Gravity... that is adequate? Me thinks not. |
| This article (are you happy now?) wrote: | | In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero. |
More about the rest of your post in a separate post... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5914
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | ah yes... a website that cites sources commenting on a film they found unconvincing... but at the same time ALL of them had nothing but praises for Michael Moore and his garbage ‘documentaries . |
Evidence?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | No. FFT's assertion is that the sum total of energy in the universe is zero because negative energy cancels out positive energy... he never gets around to explaining how this works... |
A + -A = 0
It's ... really pretty simple?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | he is applying Guth's theory to heat energy... that much I do know. |
All energy. Still don't see how the second law applies. Why do you think it does?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Also.. if 1LoTD asserts that energy is neither created or destroyed... how is it that we can have the spontaneous generation of energy period? |
Because the net result is that no energy was created. Net energy = zero.
Completely bypasses the first law.
And this has been pointed out a couple of times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Also.. if 1LoTD asserts that energy is neither created or destroyed... how is it that we can have the spontaneous generation of energy period? |
This is such low hanging fruit I can't leave it hanging. I will get to that Sternberg thing though.
| First Law of Thermodynamics wrote: | In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.
It can also be defined as:
for a thermodynamic cycle the sum of net heat supplied to the system and the net work done by the system is equal to zero.
The first law can be stated mathematically as:
dU=δQ-δW,
where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, δQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and δW is a small amount of work done by the system.
|
Seems to fit just fine... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | It's not quite simple enough for a sound-byte answer. It is fairly simple, but you didn't go for FFT's answer, so I thought I'd give you some examples of the concept in use. I rather enjoyed reading the first one, so it's a shame you don't have time for it. |
Gravity... that is adequate? Me thinks not. |
| This article (are you happy now?) wrote: | | In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero. |
More about the rest of your post in a separate post... |
What... as I asked earlier what does kinetic energy have to do with 1LoTD or 2LoTD???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | ah yes... a website that cites sources commenting on a film they found unconvincing... but at the same time ALL of them had nothing but praises for Michael Moore and his garbage ‘documentaries . |
Evidence? |
Go the website FFT... bring up the columns deriding Expelled... then check what that paper had to say about... say... Fahrenheit 9/11... and you'll have your answer.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | No. FFT's assertion is that the sum total of energy in the universe is zero because negative energy cancels out positive energy... he never gets around to explaining how this works... |
A + -A = 0
It's ... really pretty simple? |
Great... tell me how gravity effects heat. I can see how it affects kinetic energy... heat... not so much.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | he is applying Guth's theory to heat energy... that much I do know. |
All energy. Still don't see how the second law applies. Why do you think it does? |
Because all of the heat in the universe tends toward entropy... this assertion that gravity is somehow playing a role in it has me curious... I don't see how it does and I would like you to explain to me what A + -A=0. If A = available heat to do work, then –A, gravity (which is generated by the existence of matter) must somehow effect A... that part I don't get.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Also.. if 1LoTD asserts that energy is neither created or destroyed... how is it that we can have the spontaneous generation of energy period? |
Because the net result is that no energy was created. Net energy = zero.
Completely bypasses the first law.
And this has been pointed out a couple of times. |
Indeed.. you have pointed it out but haven't explained it... only asserted. When asked.. you provide perfunctory answers devoid of any substance. You obfuscate... and try to side step the question. Take a few minutes and explain this to me… as it makes absolutely NO sense at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The first law can be stated mathematically as:
dU=δQ-δW,
where dU is a small increase in the internal energy of the system, δQ is a small amount of heat added to the system, and δW is a small amount of work done by the system. |
δQ comes from where? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
What... as I asked earlier what does kinetic energy have to do with 1LoTD or 2LoTD???? |
I thought you were the one who says there's some issue with this violating these laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
What... as I asked earlier what does kinetic energy have to do with 1LoTD or 2LoTD???? |
I thought you were the one who says there's some issue with this violating these laws. |
For the love of life here Ana... FFT is asserting the Guth's theory throws out 2LoTD... entropy of energy... heat energy ('thermo'-dynamics) I say it doesn't as it seems to address kinetic energy only. How does it effect heat energy is all I'm asking here. 1LoTD states energy is neither created or destroyed... TD = Thermo... heat... 2LoTD same... if it doesn't violate these laws... please tell how heat is negated by gravity. That is the part that makes absolutely no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5914
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Go the website FFT... bring up the columns deriding Expelled... then check what that paper had to say about... say... Fahrenheit 9/11... and you'll have your answer. |
What paper?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Great... tell me how gravity effects heat. I can see how it affects kinetic energy... heat... not so much. |
Tell me how this is relevant?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Because all of the heat in the universe tends toward entropy... |
Trinity1: do you actually believe this?
Because this idea has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Heat energy is the result of entropy, not something which tends towards entropy. There are other forms of energy beyond "kinetic" and "heat."
It's more accurate to say that all of the energy in the universe tends to change into heat energy.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | this assertion that gravity is somehow playing a role in it has me curious... |
A role in what, exactly?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I don't see how it does and I would like you to explain to me what A + -A=0. If A = available heat to do work, then –A, gravity (which is generated by the existence of matter) must somehow effect A... that part I don't get. |
A = all positive energy. -A = all negative energy.
Do you believe that heat energy is somehow unique among energy types and is not affected by gravity?
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Indeed.. you have pointed it out but haven't explained it... only asserted. When asked.. you provide perfunctory answers devoid of any substance. You obfuscate... and try to side step the question. Take a few minutes and explain this to me… as it makes absolutely NO sense at all. |
You're not trying very hard, because it's been explained and you just keep repeating the things I've already explained are errors.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | For the love of life here Ana... FFT is asserting the Guth's theory throws out 2LoTD... entropy of energy... |
See, this is what I mean. Nowhere have I claimed this. The second law does not apply.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I say it doesn't as it seems to address kinetic energy only. How does it effect heat energy is all I'm asking here. 1LoTD states energy is neither created or destroyed... TD = Thermo... heat... 2LoTD same... if it doesn't violate these laws... please tell how heat is negated by gravity. That is the part that makes absolutely no sense. |
Again, do you believe that heat energy is somehow unique among energy types and is not affected by gravity? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Great... tell me how gravity effects heat. I can see how it affects kinetic energy... heat... not so much. |
Tell me how this is relevant? |
I don't know FFT... you are the one who asserts it does... not me.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Because all of the heat in the universe tends toward entropy... |
Trinity1: do you actually believe this? |
Well... that is what 2LoTD states. It is a scientific law after all... scientific laws are just a smidge more than theory and conjecture. Issac Asimov:
“This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make” (Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Break Even,” Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6).
It is based on all observations... perhaps you know an observational instance of this not occurring? Or perhaps how it is effected by Guth’s theory. However, Asimov feels differently…
| Quote: | | Because this idea has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Heat energy is the result of entropy, not something which tends towards entropy. There are other forms of energy beyond "kinetic" and "heat." |
Right.. there are. However, 2LoTD deals with the heat energy... and that is what I have asserted all along... while you have continually insisted that it is not valid as this 'negative energy' somehow wipes it out...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | this assertion that gravity is somehow playing a role in it has me curious... |
A role in what, exactly? |
Entropy...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I don't see how it does and I would like you to explain to me what A + -A=0. If A = available heat to do work, then –A, gravity (which is generated by the existence of matter) must somehow effect A... that part I don't get. |
A = all positive energy. -A = all negative energy.
Do you believe that heat energy is somehow unique among energy types and is not affected by gravity? |
No... not at all. I'm only wanting you to tell me how gravity effects it so that 2LoTD does not apply... that’s all.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Indeed.. you have pointed it out but haven't explained it... only asserted. When asked.. you provide perfunctory answers devoid of any substance. You obfuscate... and try to side step the question. Take a few minutes and explain this to me… as it makes absolutely NO sense at all. |
You're not trying very hard, because it's been explained and you just keep repeating the things I've already explained are errors. |
OK... fine... perhaps you can provide a citation demonstrating that your assertions apply to heat energy... would that be too much to ask. I have done quite a few searchs and how come up with zip... perhaps it is my bias getting the way... maybe not... but the fact is you have not explained this... you have asserted it. When confronted to provide a cogent answer you obfuscate... and try to state that You're not trying very hard, because it's been explained... when in fact it hasn't. Not by a long shot. This is not going to go away no matter how hard you try FFT...
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | For the love of life here Ana... FFT is asserting the Guth's theory throws out 2LoTD... entropy of energy... |
See, this is what I mean. Nowhere have I claimed this. The second law does not apply. |
Um... yes you have. I have asked you to provide me an example of the creation of energy... or an example of where there has been a decrease in entropy (the opposite of what 2LoTD states). You have insisted that Guth's negative energy solves this problem... my assertion is that it doesn't.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I say it doesn't as it seems to address kinetic energy only. How does it effect heat energy is all I'm asking here. 1LoTD states energy is neither created or destroyed... TD = Thermo... heat... 2LoTD same... if it doesn't violate these laws... please tell how heat is negated by gravity. That is the part that makes absolutely no sense. |
Again, do you believe that heat energy is somehow unique among energy types and is not affected by gravity? |
See above... I don't... but what I don't see is how gravity somehow negates it.. that is what I would like you to explain. Kinetic energy I can understand... heat energy... no... absolutely not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | I'm not going to watch the movie in any way that would reward the
ones who made it. About Sternberg - I read... |
ah yes... a website that cites sources commenting on a film they found unconvincing... but at the same time ALL of them had nothing but praises for Michael Moore and his garbage ‘documentaries . So... go ahead and believe
what you want Ana based on what people tell you about stuff. It is your prerogative. |
Those crazy people, citing things and all. Tsk, tsk. I don't like M Moore's scruples when it comes to documentaries either, but this isn't about that. This page is one of many I looked at, but this one is the most succinct so I went with that. I suppose I could have posted more, but you don't have time to sift through them anyways, or so I hear. I just picked what I thought was the best one.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | that he had an unpaid position that he had given notice of resignation for half a year prior to his, shall we say, gaffe. |
Excuse me. Do you have a citation for this? I have plenty of third party (unbiased findings) demonstrating that he was forced out of this position by creating a hostile work environment for him... for doing absolutely nothing wrong. He followed procedure... and people didn't like it... period... so they forced him out. Now, if you have an unbiased third party citation demonstrating something else... please share it with us. |
In what way was his work environment hostile (other than, of course, the resultant high tensions for everyone on his floor - see page 43 of the appendix below)?
There aren't going to be any unbiased findings to this story because the only people privy to this private information are the parties involved, or third parties who have no right to divulge it. However, since you don't like the NSCE as far as bias goes, I thought I'd share what Sternberg said:
| Richard Sternberg, on his own website wrote: | | In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings; after almost two years I was tiring of my editorial responsibilities and eager to have more time for my own research and writing. At that time, however, no new managing editor could be found, and so without withdrawing my letter of resignation I agreed to continue on as managing editor until such time as the Council could find my replacement. That happened in May 2004, when Dr. Richard Banks agreed to replace me after the issue Volume 117-3 and a major "bulletin" that was nearly complete. So as planned for some time, in September 2004 Dr. Banks took over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. |
Did you notice that last line there?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | So, he left the job (if you can call it a job - it was certainly not his income source), not the other way 'round, and not even because of this little incident. |
Are you kidding me? Ruining a man's career (regardless if the position was paid or not) is no 'little incident' Ana. You know just as well as I do, in these circles, people's reputations are more important than the salary they draw. |
If indeed his career is ruined (On 15 November 2006, he received a further three year appointment as an unpaid 'research collaborator' at the NMNH - source), it's because of this farce of a scandal. The guy published a paper that had very little to do with the PBSW in the first place by bypassing the standard editorial procedure. He did a bad job as an editor. His unprofessional act may have damaged the Smithsonian's reputation, though, and so one would think that you would consider that heinous.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
This is reality we are talking about and not some spin Talk Origins, PZ Meyer, or Lil Dicky Dawkins is saying. If you believe differently about Sternberg being forced out of this position... what type of evidence... other than 'say-so' do you have? |
Nothing I've seen is by any of the people above (whom you yourself have no problem saying nasty things about, so it's interesting to see you get your panties in a twist when somebody else does it, and in a less public way than an internet forum). Anyways, my 'evidence' is from many sources, including Sternberg himself, as stated above.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
HERE are a few of the statements from what the Office of Independent Council for the United States of America found: |
Oh, nifty - you've seen his website too.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| OIC wrote: | | * During our initial investigations, OSC has been able to find support for many of your allegations. However, the SI is now refusing to cooperate with our investigation. |
|
I like how you omitted the reasons given just after this for why the SI is now not cooperating, which were outlined earlier in the letter:
| Your source also wrote: | | The Smithsonian Institution (SI) has taken legal steps to ensure that RAs are not employees of the SI. Our investigation revealed that you are a Title 42 Scientist, employed by the National Institute of Health (NIH). Pursuant to your agreement with the NIH, you are allowed to work 50% of your time at NIH and the other 50% with the SI. This is a common arrangement with both NIH and the SI. While your case was pending the Board decided the Fishbein v. D.H.H.S case. This case exempts Title 42 Scientists from Title 5 protections, which would effectively remove you from the protections granted under the auspices of OSC. OSC's initial investigation supports the SI's contention that you are not an employee, and therefore are not covered under the jurisdictional statutes imposed upon OSC. Further the attorney for the SI has made it clear that the SI will not voluntarily participate in any additional investigation into your complaint. They will legally challenge our jurisdictional authority. |
Further, his activities with the PBSW were deemed 'non-SI activities', so it makes sense that the SI no longer wanted to participate in something that wasn't to do with them:
| Quote: | | Our preliminary investigation was able to confirm that your participation in the Proceedings was off-duty activity and not affiliated with your work as a RA with the SI. A talking points memo from the SI public affairs office that was drafted after the publication of the Meyer article admits that the Proceedings is a "non-Smithsonian" journal and that your activities as the editor of the Proceedings were “non-SI activities.” |
| Trinity1 wrote: |
* Our investigation also shows that there is a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.
* A statement from one of the emails concerning this case: “These people to my mind are only a scale up on the fundies of a more destructive kind in other parts of the world. Depressing. Oh, if we only still had Steve Gould to lead the counter-attack." |
From the wording it is clear that the sender and receiver of that email were already of similar opinion concerning IDists, so it's difficult to see how his reputation was tarnished by this. Look at the way you talk to us about "Dicky Dawkins" - how is what they said any different? Anyways, from those same emails we also see stuff like this:
| Page 32 of the link to that appendix I provide later this post wrote: | | First, if he can do good standard science, that's all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or fall on its own. |
So agree with his creationism or no, these guys wanted his scientific knowledge around.
Here's more (from the same page):
| Quote: | | If there are repercussions for von Sternberg from the article, they should be because of his poor judgement in publishing it. |
Seems reasonable...
| Quote: | | Our thoughts parallel yours in terms of what might be done to salvage the reputation of the journal, though we have a couple of additional suggestions, or perhaps requests for information that only the President/Council could provide -- having to do with the journal's editorial procedures and whether or not they were followed. |
Oho! It is about the journal's reputation.
Also, to go back to what you said above, of course there's a political and religious component here - that's all ID is. The religion and politics entered when he published that paper.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
* Of great import is the fact that these same SI and NMNH employees immediately aligned themselves with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Our investigation shows that NCSE is a political advocacy
organization dedicated to defeating any introduction of ID, creationism or religion into the American education system. In fact, members of NCSE worked closely with SI and NMNH members in outlining a strategy to have
you investigated and discredited within the SI. |
They were already aligned. If they're science/education institutes, they should be working meticulously to keep non-science (including ID, creationism, and religion) out of the science classroom.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
* Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms.
* There was a strategy by several managers to force you out of the SI. |
Would you stay quiet and allow someone who damages your workplace's integrity (and by association, your own) to stay there and continue to damage said reputation, considering what you said about how reputation is very important? See above where it is shown that the concern was over what to do to salvage the journal's reputation.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
* Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a "martyr" by firing you for publishing a paper in ID. |
They could not fire him from the SI because his activities in the PBSW are non-SI activity, however closely entwined their reputations are. They wanted to clear their reputation, and making a 'martyr' of Sternberg is clearly not the way to accomplish that. Judging from what Sternberg ended up doing, that wasn't an unfounded fear.
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Quote: |
* They wanted to make it clear that you should "do the right thing and resign." This supports your allegation that you were subjected to a hostile work environment. |
|
Page 16 of this link shows more unprofessional acts committed by Sternberg:
| Quote: | Here are some eye-openers, juts FYI (and pardon me for sounding repetitive). Said RA:
* is not known who he reports to, or what decapod groups he is working on and for what - projects/manuscripts;
* comes to work "after hours only" but nobody knows when, yet we will extend him long-term space
privileges (meaning in the daytime his assigned space could be tied up);
* keeps an unusual number of catalogued specimens in NMNH office, and for unusual lengths of time, ignoring requests from curator in charge to place them back in stacks;
* keeps in NMNH office what appear to be specimens that have not been registered through the required
TM procedures;
* has currently 50 books checked out from SI library (I checked this with the library);
* an SI staff from another NMNH department has been seen entering RA office and apparently handles
specimens without authorization from IZ CM head or curator in charge. |
There's also something in there about him having special privileges in the form of master access keys, which he was, after some time, required to relinquish, and which, after quite some time, had still not done. How hostile would you consider extra access to be? Especially in light of the next tidbit:
And from page 57:
| Quote: | [Sternberg] has a long and proven history of saying one thing and doing another, the recent PBSW is just
the latest case. And he does have a history of mishandling specimens: I have been told by colleagues
who know, that while on a fellowship at lVlC Venezuela, Gilberto Rodriguez had to restrict Sternberg's
access to the freshwater crab collections there because he was destroying many specimens. |
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Now… these are only a sampling of what was found in the Independent Councils report… there is a lot more there if you care to read. My question is, if he had resigned prior to the publication of this article, why did the folks feel the need to force him to resign? Does that make sense to you? If that was not the case, where are you getting your information? |
Perhaps his colleagues weren't aware of his resignation. However, we've now established (from his own website) that he did indeed give notice of resignation prior to that publication. From the appendix provided above, it seems they were pushing for his resignation prior to that publication for the reasons cited on page 16. Also, it's worth noting that it seems there was one guy pushing for disassociation with Sternberg, and others were of the mind to tell him to knock it off. Sounds like typical office politics to me - not everyone gets along. In any case, the others do keep this one guy in line, so what more needs to be done?
***update***
He resigned as editor but not as research associate. He kept that position through to its natural expiry in 2007. He was never forced to resign from either position.
Here is an illuminating quote from one of Sternberg's colleagues regarding the content of Sternberg's website:
| Page 52 of the appendix wrote: |
Responding to allegations that he rushed publication of the Meyer article, Sternberg states that
publication of the Meyer article took "about 6 months", and that "By contrast, I once helped colleagues at
the Museum rush out a paper on a topic upon which they feared that others were about to preempt them
in about four weeks" (page 4). This is an accusatory statement implying that NMNH scientists are
unethical, and are in the business of claiming authorship at the cost of bending editorial procedures. Who
are these NMNH scientists which he calls "colleagues" but treats with such disdain? Was not his
responsibility as editor to say "no" if the request was unethical? And in any case, if NMNH scientists
behave so badly, why does Sternberg trumpet so much his Research Associate appointment at SI, or why
does he even choose to share the building with us? He should be asked to resign his appointment. |
I sure hope this exhaustive post is enough for you. I apologize for the length but I wanted to be thorough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to break this up into seperate posts as you were right... it is entirely to long. Sorry for ignoring some of the non-pertinent statements.. but I really want to ensure we understand what happened here.
| Ana wrote: | In what way was his work environment hostile (other than, of course, the resultant high tensions for everyone on his floor - see page 43 of the appendix below)?
There aren't going to be any unbiased findings to this story because the only people privy to this private information are the parties involved, or third parties who have no right to divulge it. However, since you don't like the NSCE as far as bias goes, I thought I'd share what Sternberg said:
| Richard Sternberg, on his own website wrote: | | In October of 2003 I resigned as managing editor of the Proceedings; after almost two years I was tiring of my editorial responsibilities and eager to have more time for my own research and writing. At that time, however, no new managing editor could be found, and so without withdrawing my letter of resignation I agreed to continue on as managing editor until such time as the Council could find my replacement. That happened in May 2004, when Dr. Richard Banks agreed to replace me after the issue Volume 117-3 and a major "bulletin" that was nearly complete. So as planned for some time, in September 2004 Dr. Banks took over as managing editor of the Proceedings. This transition had nothing to do with the publication of the Meyer paper. |
Did you notice that last line there? |
As you mention later... editor... not research associate... 
But what I find absolutely amazing is how dismissive you are about the findings of OIC investigation. I only picked a few of the comments from the investigation summary.... would you like to go through all of them? How in hell can you even try to sit there and justify what SI did? Is this how science works? I read constantly on these boards the clamoring for published research from creationists... if there is no research there is no validity to their claims. But... but... and but again, once they do get an article published heads role and careers are ruined (and yes we WILL be going over those snipittes here shortly). Then, in face of the facts from an independent investigating body, all of these allegations turn out to be true... its 'well, he deserved it', 'he didn't follow procedure' (which is BS as we are going to indeed discuss and see why it is another one of the contorted lies being told), and now you want to infer that the Meyer article was outside the scope of the journal... OK... we shall see.
Lets take a look at the last point here first. This is what Sternberg had to say about that issue:
| Sternberg wrote: | | I'm taking inappropriate to mean one of two things, either a faux pas such as wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or something politically incorrect. The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. Now his ideas are considered politically incorrect or "anti-scientific" by some. But since I don't do politically correct science and since I think that human reason (i.e., science) is capable of at least considering questions about ultimate causes, no, I don't think his paper was inappropriate in any meaningful sense. |
So…when you write:
| Ana wrote: | | The guy published a paper that had very little to do with the PBSW in the first place by bypassing the standard editorial procedure. He did a bad job as an editor. His unprofessional act may have damaged the Smithsonian's reputation, though, and so one would think that you would consider that heinous. |
You are really not being completely honest with your assessment… just because in the opinion people may feel that the article fell outside of the scope does not mean the article fell outside the scope of the journal... now does it? Sternberg explains this and if you were not cherry picking quotes from his website... you might have noticed this error.
More on the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is what happened according to Sternberg:
1. The paper was received, he conferred with a colleague as to whether or not he should send it out to be peer reviewed. Was told it should be.
2. The paper was sent to four scientists to be reviewed. Three reviewed it. Did you see that Ana… 3 scientists reviewed and then made recommendations for corrections.
3. Corrections were made. He again confered with his colleague.
4. The final draft was sent back for publication.
5. Sternberg approved the final draft for publication, AS HE HAD DONE BEFORE. This paper was in his area of expertise and he was qualified to do it. So he did.
6. Then, everyone has a conniption…
Here is what he had to say about the procedures he evidently violated:
| Sternberg wrote: | | I followed the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers' comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly. |
So… please tell me where or what procedure, as everyone keeps insisting was violated… but please be careful…. As if he did violated a procedure, I would like some type of citation of why this wasn’t a big deal before.
Last edited by Trinity1 on Wed May 14, 2008 6:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
