New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

On Hagiographical Reviewing

This review prompted a melancholic reflection: analytical philosophy got started in a kind of allergic reaction to hero-worship, but a few generations later we have become quite good at it (recall also this post on Kripke-Mania):

The essays in the volume also nicely illustrate the profound impact Alvin Plantinga has had on the field of philosophy. His purely academic achievements were not the only reason for this conference and ensuing volume. Consider the first footnote in Michael Bergmann's essay.

I am very pleased to be presenting this chapter in honor of Alvin Plantinga. His philosophical writings are brilliant, field defining, and full of wit, all of which make them both hugely beneficial and a huge pleasure to read. But even more impressive and meaningful to me, however, is the manner in which he has modeled in his own life, in multiple ways that I think about often, how someone with a career in philosophy can be a faithful Christian (p. 9, n. 1).

Comments such as these, including the whole of Wolterstorff's essay, indicate that Al has not been content to merely blaze new trails in the philosophical landscape. He has shouldered the more difficult task of guide and mentor to many who have followed him on those new trails. This volume appropriately conveys appreciation for his work, both philosophical and personal.

I counted four "profound"s, four "important"s, two "fascinating"s (not to mention Bergmann's size-obsession ("huge"), etc.) in this short review. Anyway, let's grant the significance of Prof. Plantinga's contribution to metaphysics, especially.  As I have remarked before, some of his sociological actions are more controversial than these hagiographical comments by his admirers suggest. It's one thing to have such hero-worship in a volume devoted to celebrating the man's life and works; it's another to recycle them in a professional review.

On dealing with high prices of academic journals

After a high profile mathematician got the ball rolling again (and he does not pull his punches ["The journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals is a notorious example of a journal that is regarded as a joke by many mathematicians, but which libraries all round the world must nevertheless subscribe to"]!), our friends at Crooked Timber are calling for a boycott of Elsevier journals because of its pricing practices. This is an issue we return to regularly at NewAPPS (here and here). This call to action will probably fail, too, because as we learned in the Synthese debacle (a Springer journal) and from the rigged ESF rankings (again, involving Springer journals) too many powerful academics benefit from the status quo. (I have named names on these issues, but this is not just a European problem.) Given the the way academics are evaluated and advanced, it pays to "capture" an established journal for one's intellectual niche(s) come what may. I predict: we will only see a change if the influential folk that protect the status quo are bribed in the right way, oops, I mean brought along in advance.

Editorial changes for Synthese

For those who have not seen it yet: two days ago, Synthese announced a series of changes to its editorial structure. The most detailed of them concerns new procedures for special issues, which had been anticipated in the otherwise elliptic statements by the EiCs in response to the intelligent design special issue controversy, earlier this year. Moreover, John Symons is stepping down, after 10 years of dedicated work as EiC of Synthese; Johan van Benthem will now serve as chair of the advisory board, and two new EiC will join Vincent F. Hendricks in this capacity: Otávio Bueno and Wiebe van der Hoek.

Possible Synthese Development...

Gabriele Contessa reports that he has "an extremely reliable source" confirming that John Symons is leaving as editor at Synthese. Contessa comments, "As more evidence came in, it became clearer and clearer to me that Symons had actually been sidelined by the other two EiCs. His resignation seems to confirm my suspicions." On the evidence of sidelining, Contessa probably has this letter in mind.

Brian Leiter hasn't forgotten the Synthese scandal.

Have you? In hindsight, I don't know what really is more disturbing:

a) The General Editors' caving to Alvin Plantinga, who can apparently get respected journals to include papers by his buddies without refereeing, and boast about it in the NYT;

b) The General Editors' giving Beckwith a free publication in Synthese to recycle his nonsense;

c) The General Editors' letting Beckwith publish a smear article that blatantly abuses their disclaimer (and creates a nice performative contradiction on how concerns about "tone" can be abused without civility) in order to blacken the name of a courageous scholar, Barbara Forrest;

d) The General Editors' willingness to execute a-c behind the back of their guest editors (despite assurances to the contrary);

e) The General Editors' inability to frankly admit that they screwed up and apologize to Barbara Forrest and the philosophical community;

f) The unresolved/unexplored role of Springer's lawyers in all of this.

Update: I am not allowing anonymous posts if your identity is not be revealed to me (privately). Final Update: This post is now closed for comments.

Synthese...some unasked questions?

A few days ago, Mohan reported a case of suppression at Elsevier. It reminded me that during the Synthese affair, Brian Leiter published part of the exchange between some of the General Editors of Synthese and Barbara Forrest. Significantly, the editors of Springer (one of them a facebook friend of mine) were part of the exchange, while John Symons (another general editor of Synthese) was not. At the time, I was intrigued by the fact that Symons was left out; of course, the crucial part of the story was that the folk at Springer were part of the conversation. One wonders what role the Springer lawyers played during the Synthese affair?

Suppression at Elsevier?

I was chatting with my friend, Jim Brown, the distinguished philosopher of science, about the possible involvement of the publishers in the Synthese affair. He told me the following story about an unpleasant encounter with Elsevier:

I can well believe that the publishers played a major role and perhaps bullied editors who aren't used to dealing with such issues.

I had a run in with Elsevier a few years ago.  A paper of mine was accepted for a special issue of Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, it was copyedited, etc and ready to go.  Suddenly the publisher intervened and suspended the issue.  Their lawyer had demanded several changes in my article, saying it was libellous.  (It was about the pharmaceutical industry and the corruption of research.)  After much back and forth, eventually I agreed to make the changes provided I could add a paragraph saying I had done so.  Surprisingly, they initially agreed, then later then said they wanted several more changes.  This was after delaying the special issue for more than a year.  Some of the changes they wanted were ridiculous, for instance, they wouldn't let me quote from an article already published in the British Medical Journal.  Eventually I withdrew the article rather that submit to the censorship.  I'm still annoyed.

I feel certain that even those people who thought that the Synthese affair was driven by an North American political agenda will find it hard to condone Elsevier's behaviour above. I think we can say that there is now a trickle of stories of misconduct by commercially published journals.

Is it not time that we gave some thought to this matter as a community?

On double standards (Synthese & Stone's plagiarism)

An anonymous author comments (on Gabriele Contessa's proposal to end subscriptions to Synthese), "Why is outrage over editorial misconduct so selective? The Synthese editors get pilloried, but there has been little or no outrage directed at the editorial misconduct of those philosophy editors who have failed to retract publicly the many plagiarized articles by Martin Stone. If the “40 Cases of Plagiarism” exposé is to be trusted, there are are plagiarized articles in the Aristotelian Society Proceedings, Traditio, and a slew of volumes from Routledge, Leuven University Press, Cambridge UP, Oxford UP, not to mention others. Somehow the editors of Synthese get all the outrage from the philosophical community, while Stone’s editors across the board get a free pass when failing to issue public retractions." Just for the record: at this blog we reported and discussed the plagiarism case extensively, and called attention to the significant import to the profession (see here, here, here), here, here, and [linking up Synthese to this discussion, here). Now anonymous thinks the whole difference by the profession's response can be explained by the presence of "the politics of ID/creation." But this seems mistaken. First, nobody is defending plagiarism, while lots of folk are defending either Synthese's editors or Plantinga's actions. Second, much as I hate to admit it, history (especially medieval/renaissance history) is not central to discipline's self-conception in the way that epistemology, philosophy of science, metaphysics, and debates over design arguments are. In addition, there is, as anonymous notes, a further political dimension. But to reduce the situation to the final point does not seem quite right to me.

Another Synthese proposal....

Gabriele Contessa is proposing a subscription boycott.

An unhelpful way to think about the Synthese controversy

I just came across a short post by Leiter with the unbelievable title 'European formal philosophers, don't relax yet...', which made me truly uncomfortable. I've said before in comments here that, in my opinion, to insist on the differences between 'Americans' and 'Europeans' in the Synthese affair is only likely to make matters even worse. It is my conviction that a lot of the drama has been caused precisely by mutual misunderstanding on both sides, but this is all the more reason to avoid this kind of polarization and stereotypical generalization at this point. Even as a joke, it's not funny, unless Leiter's goal was to alienate even further those 'European formal philosophers' who are truly dissatisfied with the editorial decisions made by the EiC as well as with their later statements, but who may think that a boycott approach is not the most likely way to reach a resolution of the situation. (That's roughly my own position; do I count as an 'European formal philosopher'?)

For the record, I do think that the attribution of parochialism to the critics of the EiC coming from my esteemed colleagues Martin Stokhof and Frank Veltman (and there's not a hint of irony here, they are both fantastic colleagues and philosophers) was itself parochial. But by putting up a post like this, I'm not sure what exactly Leiter is trying to accomplish, beyond provoking even more unhelpful animosity.

UPDATE - Leiter has added an update in his original post, which addresses some of the concerns that have been voiced here.

 

A post-petition poll on the Synthese affair

Brian Leiter is hosting the poll here. His preamble reads: 

Since the petition did not succeed in getting the editors to either apologize or retract the disclaimer, I would like to now gauge professional opinion about this whole affair.

Please consider voting in the poll. 

On the use of the term "ad hominem"

Buried deep in the comments to this post, Kelly James Clark writes in reply to Ingo Brigandt:

Ingo--I concede that Beckwith's response to Forest contained similar ad hominems. Read my response.

To which I replied: 

Kelly, my argument, which I think is shared by Ingo, is that neither Forrest nor Beckwith engage in "ad hominems." They give negative evaluations of the quality of each other's work. That is not an ad hominem.

Further, Forrest's examination of the claims made by others as to Beckwith's legal credentials is not an ad hominem directed at Beckwith.

And finally, our problem with Beckwith's negative evaluation of the quality of Forrest's work is his completely illegitimate recruitment of the EiC's disclaimer as backup for his evaluation. This is illegitimate on two counts: 1) the disclaimer does not mention Forrest; and 2) it does not mention the quality of any article, only tone.

In my opinion, it's fine for Beckwith to negatively evaluate Forrest's work. He can present his case for that evaluation. But it is wrong both philosophically and professionally for him to cite the EiC's disclaimer as support for his claims as to the poor quality of Forrest's article.

I have posted this separately as I think it is a very important point. Others are free to comment here as well.

Synthese: The Story So Far

It's wonderful to wake up, have breakfast, and see that the Europeans and N. American early birds have been working on this while I slept. Let me lay out what I now think must have happened, modifying my earlier timeline by taking into account comments on my earlier post, especially from Jim Fetzer, John Pieret, and Reinhard Muskens.

0. Special issue of Synthese published on-line, including articles by Barbara Forrest and Trevor Pennock.

1. EICs receive letters from Alvin Plantinga and Francis Beckwith and worry about the "tone" of some of the contributions, or possibly just the two mentioned above. At this stage, the EICs don't quite know what to do about it, and waver back and forth, but one clear option is to do nothing. They include the Guest Editors in the discussions during this "oscillatory phase."

2. Then Synthese received some kind of legal threat from someone other than a Christian philosopher. (Since Alvin Plantinga is quite clearly a christian philosopher, he is not the author of any kind of legal threat. So the letter from him is separate from this threat. Is Beckwith himself a Christian philosopher? It would be highly evasive of the editors to describe the legal threat simply as not coming from a CP if Beckwith was the author. On the other hand, what grounds would anybody else have for a legal threat? Draw what conclusion you may.)

3. The publisher either directly receives or is apprised by EICs of a legal threat.

4. "Eventually the editors arrived at a shared position, in consultation with the publisher, based on what we judged to be the offending language in two papers." (The use of the definite article is an inadvertent give-away: "the" offending language. Unless this is a linguistic slip, signed by one of the leading modal logicians in the world, it is a back-reference to discussions about "offending language.")

5. In discussions with the publishers and perhaps their lawyers/in-house legal team, the Editors arrive at a decision to do something. They ask Forrest whether she will tone her paper down. This matter is unresolved, but at about this time the publishers advise/order the EICs not to communicate any further with others, including Forrest and Guest Editors.   Thus: "We were unable to properly communicate later stages of our decision-making process to the guest editors." (The lack of ability is clearly not some large-scale breakdown of email servers, etc.)

THE ACT At this point the special issue of Synthese goes into print. EICs publish a disclaimer, and an on-line response from Beckwith (to be printed in due course). Beckwith says that the EICs have publicly distanced themselves from some quite specific elements in Forrest's article--which they hadn't, except insofar as they consented to the publication of his statement to this effect.

6. The discussion on this blog, on Leiter Reports, and on a number of other sites takes off. A petition is posted and signed by over 400 philosophers, including most leading philosophers of biology. The editors are more or less forced to write a response, but in order to make it as invisible as possible, they post it as a jpeg image on an island website. No note of the response is made on Synthese's official website.

I have tried to be as non-commital as possible on contested points in the above narrative, and it may contain some inaccuracies, but on the whole it is plausible, in my opinion.

What conclusions should we draw from this narrative? The first is that the publishers played a role in the process. This does not exculpate the EICs: on the contrary. But it shows how commercial factors can get involved in a process that most of us would like to see in academic hands. Readers of blogs such as Leiter's should be alarmed by how professional management has slowly eroded academic control of universities: at KCL, Nottingham, UMSL, and a number of other places. We should similarly be alarmed by non-academic management at scholarly publishing houses.

A while ago, there was a suggestion on Leiter Reports--I forget by who--that academics should not publish in or referee for for-profit journals. It is well worth thinking in a broader context of how we should relate to Springer, North-Holland/Reidel, and the rest. We should remember: exorbitant subscription rates, issues that serve industry, and other problems that have come to light in the last year or two.

On the Synthese Editor in Chiefs' Response to our Petition

Initially I posted this as a comment on Catarina Dutilh Novaes' post below, but at Eric Schliesser's suggestion, I am making a separate post of it, with a couple of small changes:

The EIC response is a scanned pdf, which was initially posted at http://www.syntpetition.info/. As far as I can tell, this is a website with one item only. This is clearly a tactic to make the response as obscure and invisible as it can be. There is no link to this site from the official Synthese site, and the response to the petition is not posted on the official site, though a lot of bumpf is.

The response says that there were no legal threats from Beckwith's side, but implies that there were quasi-legal threats from others. The EICs say that they are constrained by these threats, but do not say how. (Why can't they tell us why they object to Forrest's piece, for example?) The EICs do not deny (though they also do not clearly confirm) that the Guest Editors were assured that no editorial statement would be published. Their statement does not explain why Beckwith's reply to Forrest was not refereed. It does not apologize, though it says that editorial scrutiny policies are being reviewed. (I take this to be a renewed dig at Forrest, not an acknowledgement that they were wrong to publish Beckwith's response in the form that they did.)

 A passive aggressive gambit, in my opinion.

Open Letter to Alvin Plantinga (after minor typographic/spelling editing)

From:Eric Schliesser <[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
Sent: Sat, May 14, 2011 3:43:11 PM
Subject:Open Letter to Alvin Plantinga

Dear Professor Plantinga,

I read in yesterday's New York Times, that you wrote the editors of Synthese after the publication of Prof. Forrest's article in that journal. The Times reports you as follows: “I thought her article didn’t measure up to the usual academic standards of Synthese at all,” he said on Thursday. “It was heavy on character assassination and innuendo and light on anything Beckwith ever said.”

You are entitled to your judgment, of course. Moreover, you have every right to call professional misdeeds to the attention of the editors of any journal you wish.  But now I wonder if you would also lend your stature to help rectify a wrong that is the (indirect?) consequence of your actions; I am thinking of the disclaimer inserted by the general editors and the subsequent use, or shall we say, abuse made of it by Professor Beckwith. As you probably recall the general editors inserted a disclaimer, with the following line, “that some of the papers in this issue employ a tone that may make it hard to distinguish between dispassionate intellectual discussion of other views and disqualification of a targeted author or group.” 

Here's what Professor Beckwith does with the passage: "Forrest’s assessment of my work is a professional embarrassment. So much so that the editors of this journal—not to be confused with the editors of the “special issue” in which Forrest’s article appears—have done something unprecedented: they have included in the front of the issue a disclaimer (Branch and Fetzer 2011, p. 170). They have distanced themselves from her literary misconduct, her article’s personal attacks and bizarre tangents into my religious pilgrimage that surround and embed her case against my work. As much as I do not deserve Forrest’s attempt at character assassination, I surely do not deserve the generosity of the Synthese editors. For in the grand world of academic philosophy, I am a minor figure, who, to be sure, has been blessed to be part of a first-class philosophy department at an outstanding university."

 

I was struck that in addition to echoing your judgment, Professor Beckwith also calls Professor Forrest's analysis of his work "a professional embarrassment." Surely, if anything counts, this counts as "character assassination?" I hope you will join me in contacting the editors of Synthese that such claims do not belong in the pages of Synthese.

 

Sincerely,

Eric Schliesser

UPDATE [not in the original letter; ES]: some readers may find the reasons why I (and my fellow bloggers, Mark Lance and John Protevi,) disagree with Professor Plantinga's considered judgment of Professor Forrest's article useful.
 

Latest news on the Synthese affair

UPDATE: As noted by Mohan Matthen in comments below, the response of the EiC was posted on the website http://www.syntpetition.info/ , which otherwise has no futher content whatsoever.

______________________________________________________________________________________

I just heard via Aidan McGlynn on Twitter that Beckwith (yes, Beckwith!) posted a reply to the petition from the Synthese EiCs on his blog; you can see it here. It is a scanned pdf, from the looks of it, so it seems that it was sent as a hard copy (to whom?).

Also, the New York Times also ran an article on the affair today, here.

I have no idea what is going on, it all seems quite puzzling; just posting the links.

Perhaps final thoughts on the Synthese affair

While we are almost certainly past the point of diminishing marginal utility in commenting on the Synthese affair, we are perhaps not yet to the point of increasing marginal disutility, so we thought we would make some (perhaps) final points.

First, we think speculation as to the motivational or cognitive states of EiCs is beside the point. We want to concentrate on the public record, the most salient points of which are the disclaimer, and Beckwith’s use thereof.

Second, the key phrases of the disclaimer do not name any one author, and are directed solely to “tone,” not to the quality of argumentation:

We have observed that some of the papers in this issue employ a tone that may make it hard to distinguish between dispassionate intellectual discussion of other views and disqualification of a targeted author or group… tone and prose should follow the usual academic standards of politeness and respect in phrasing.

It is thus completely irrelevant to discuss the quality of Barbara Forrest’s article as a means of justifying the EiC’s disclaimer, both because her paper is not named, and because no paper is condemned for anything other than “tone.”

Third, even should one wish to proceed with a critique of Forrest’s paper for allegedly purely philosophical reasons, one should keep her chosen task in mind, a critique of ID epistemology with regard to its public policy implications. She did not set out to produce the definitive statement of the relation of religion and science, and claiming that one could do a better job at that task is neither here nor there. It would be like criticizing a runner for his or her performance as a swimmer.

Fourth, it is a canard to claim that Forrest’s analysis of the use by others of Beckwith’s legal credentials constitutes a “personal attack” on Beckwith. It is also untrue that Forrest is “attacking” Beckwith’s “religious affiliation.” Forrest is clearly using Beckwith’s writings on other faiths as illustrations of how doctrinal conflict is insoluble given the epistemology of Johnson, Dembski, and Beckwith. She may be incorrect in that assessment, but seeing it as a personal attack on Beckwith is simply false.

Finally, when the EiCs permitted Beckwith to claim that the disclaimer targeted the quality of Forrest’s argumentation, they committed a political blunder with quite possibly grave public policy implications. That Beckwith’s piece is much more uncivil than Forrest’s is mordantly ironic, but by allowing his statement to stand, the EiCs have almost certainly helped those who will wish to discredit any future testimony by Forrest as she continues her brave and admirable battle in the courts and legislatures of the US. To have that important effort hurt by the EiCs allowing Beckwith’s obnoxious use of their disclaimer to appear in a regular issue of Synthese is the most damaging aspect of the entire matter.

We thus call upon the EiCs to publicly and permanently (i.e., in the pages of Synthese) repudiate in clear terms Beckwith’s use of their disclaimer. That is the minimum they should do. 

John Protevi
Eric Schliesser
Mark Lance

On facts relevant to philosophy

When I wrote an extensive commentary on Milton Friedman's evolving views on methodology and how it related to the furore over his involvement with a Chilean dictator, I mentioned that most of the initial generation of Chicago Boys did not have a PhD in economics (only a MA) when they started serving Pinochet. It wasn't the focus of my argument, but it made sense in context to explain that these were not types with extensive research experience. Barbara Forrest did something analogous when she explored the details of how Beckwith's credentials and his arguments got used by his allies to promote a religious agenda in the public sphere. (She did not comment on Beckwith's character outside the public sphere.) All philosophers that enter the public sphere -- Heidegger, Mill, Socrates, Adam Smith, Rousseau, etc -- can expect that people will be interested in more than just their arguments, but also how those arguments relate to their public activity. (I call the relationship between philosophical argument and public scrutinity an instance of the "Socratic Problem"--more about that soon.)

Some contributors to this blog (in echoing the editors of Synthese) suggest such scrutinity somehow lowers our professional standards. If they and the editors of Synthese, can't handle public facts they shouldn't publish on topics that deal with the world. (But, please, stop the uneven treatment of Forrest and Beckwith.) Like the cold-war-traumatized heirs of the Vienna Circle, they can retreat to the lofty safety of logic and justification.

On maintaining a 'professional and dispassionate tone'.

It is safe to assume that pretty much everybody in philosophy following the Synthese story will have seen Brian Leiter's post on the letter sent in October 2010 to Barbara Forrest, from two of the three Synthese EiC. As Leiter hasn't opened the post for comments, we thought it would be a good idea to open a forum for discussion here, for those who wish to express their opinions. See also the last few comments on this thread for relevant points.

Let me quote a passage from Beckwith's rejoinder:

Forrest’s assessment of my work is a professional embarrassment. So much so that the editors of this journal—not to be confused with the editors of the “special issue” in which Forrest’s article appears—have done something unprecedented: they have included in the front of the issue a disclaimer (Branch and Fetzer 2011, p. 170). They have distanced themselves from her literary misconduct, her article’s personal attacks and bizarre tangents into my religious pilgrimage that surround and embed her case against my work. As much as I do not deserve Forrest’s attempt at character assassination, I surely do not deserve the generosity of the Synthese editors. For in the grand world of academic philosophy, I am a minor figure, who, to be sure, has been blessed to be part of a first-class philosophy department at an outstanding university.

That *this* was deemed appropriate to be published in Synthese, while objections were raised against much milder passages from Forrest's article, is particularly puzzling. So much for the EiC's concern with maintaining a 'professional and dispassionate tone'.

Why Synthese debacles will recur

In what follows I won't define 'science'--but I will use the term in a very wide sense.

1. Ever since Kuhn, all forms of inquiry have been organized in a recognizable sociological and legitimating template that we can call "the trappings of science" (journal articles, learned societies, peer review, PhDs, citation practices, etc). Unfortunately, because of science's authority [I call this Newton's challenge], this means that all kinds of dubious forms of inquiry attempt to sneak in as science under radar screen(s).

2. Given the considerable overlap between philosophy and theology, philosophy will be an attractive discipline for folk interested in pursuing religion in scientific fashion.

3. A lot of political projects want to gain the legitimacy of science. So, the temptation to infiltrate disciplines and fields will be ever-present. Moreover, these disciplines/fields will often welcome the extra attention (and increased citations, larger community, financial support, etc)! The political projects will tempt to influence the shape of various scientific discipline. (This can be benign or not; I call this the Socratic Problem.)

4. As anybody who has friends/relatives in the natural sciences knows, philosophy doesn't really run its journals very professionally. We rely on a relatively small pool of overworked and stretched editors.

5. As the world moves toward ever more "objective" metrics to evaluate (promote/hire/give grants to, etc) academics, the importance of journals will increase and the system will be overloaded.

New Leiter post with one more disturbing data point

We may be approaching the point where all sides have aired their views about the Synthese issues, but Leiter has a post today well worth quoting in full, which (both Professor Antonelli's data point and Leiter's broader morals) I think expresses beautifully many of our worries. Moreover these broader morals are ones that I think all sides to the debates thusfar should take very seriously. As to Leiter's points, it just seems obvious philosophers do have obligations to support those like Forrest (and Nussbaum's analogous work, for example), and that to the extent that any of our own actions or inactions have undermined them, then we have derived obligations to rectify this.

Aldo Antonelli (UC Davis) writes:

After sitting on fence for a while (mostly out of respect for the reputations of the Synthese editors), I finally signed the petition.

What clinched it for me was a fact that I have not seen mentioned on your blog (but was mentioned elsewhere): Beckwith's "rebuttal" published OnlineFirst on March 5, is listed as having been both received and accepted on the same day, February 7. So it would seem (unless we hear otherwise) that the rebuttal was accepted without proper refereeing, in violation of Synthese's own guidelines.

I had not noticed this peculiarity.  And it is made worse by the points noted by Ingo Brigandt (Alberta) and Eric Schliesser (Ghent), namely, that Beckwith has already invoked the disclaimer in his response in order to discredit the Forrest article (even though the 'disclaimer' purportedly only concerned tone!), and that the disclaimer will in all likelihood be similarly deployed the next time Professor Forrest testifies before the Louisiana legislature about issues involving science education.  This is why, as Professor Brigant says, it is imperative that the disclaimer be withdrawn.   The civility and tone police can do their song-and-dance, but the fact is the editorial misconduct of Johan Van Benthem, Vincent Hendricks, and John Symons is going to have real political ramifications for science education in the United States.

[Full Disclosure: I still have not signed the petition above for reasons I've stated earlier, but I do urge those both those who have signed the petition, and those like myself who have not, to consider signing the petition urging the Synthese editorial board to allow Barbara Forrest a response to Beckwith. I think that this should be something that all interlocutors can agree is both minimally just as well ethically/politically responsible.]

A surfeit of Synthesitis

It's a shame that because it comes at the end of a long discussion and we have already created a few other pages and posts on the topic, Ph. Huneman's comment didn't get noticed much: I am happy to agree that the disclaimer letter is not a great, great thing to do, or a nice experience for an innocent author -or any author. And, not that anyone is seriously debating that, I agree with those who feel that it's not such a hot idea to do a special issue on evolution and ID. But I find it surprising and saddening that so many of us are so quick to know just what happened behind the scenes (e.g., that the Eds in chief never contacted the guest editor; something I don't believe). By now it doesn't matter much: we can debate the pros and especially cons of Beckwith, and the merits of letting him respond; oh, and we can parse the strange comments on Laudan and argue that they are not so bad. And, of course, we can try and polish our reputations on the backs of Synthese. I find the mixture of posturing and stubborn moralism a real disappointment. Guys: write an elegant, sharp letter and have it signed by 10 luminaries (including some excellent European philosophers of science :) ) and published in some grand place - the LRB? Nature?; and don't submit your fine papers to the journal. And get on with formal epistemology, common sense, the history of animal spirits, or Dreideggerian enownment!! As, in, our work !

Synthese--a superficial, but hopefully, enlightening sociological tour of European (analytic) philosophy

[During the last few days I have received a number of informal queries from American colleagues about why European philosophers of science seem so eager to defend the reputation of Synthese and its editors come what may and why these seem not to understand the political ramifications of the disclaimer.  What follows is inspired by reflecting on blog comments in support of Synthese around the net; I will be terse, partial, and no doubt superficial in my sociology of European philosophy (on the Western part of the Continent). I list my observations as separate points for clarity but they are meant to be mutually enlightening.]

First, the general editors of Synthese have a sterling reputation for quality and probity. Johan Van Benthem, in particular, is arguably one of the most important analytic philosophers of Europe. His work in logic(s) and formal semantics is widely respected (not to mention his appointment in Stanford).

Second, in European philosophy (and the Humanities more generally) *research* funding has become *zero-sum*. (Such funding pays for PhD, post-doc, and research-intensive positions.) Grants are distributed by national and European grant agencies to favored individuals and, increasingly, (international) research groups. These grants are increasingly decided by ‘objective’ scientific metrics. In particular, publications in journals that have an ESF ‘A’ ranking, have reasonably high impact factors, and/or are listed in reputable indexing services such as Thomson’s Web-of-Science/Knowledge, are favored over all other forms of publications.

The Synthese affair and considerations on editorial policies

The Synthese affair has lots of important implications, and several lessons could be drawn from its different ramifications. In this post, I'd like to focus on some of the editorial policies which might have contributed to this confusing and unfortunate situation. Mostly, I'll be asking a lot of questions, and comments/remarks are most welcome.

(For what it's worth, let me say from the outset that my own position on the issue is that the EiC have made a series of very unfortunate editorial mistakes, but I do not think that a call for boycott is the best way to deal with the issue and to work towards redressing the potentially very serious implications of these events.)

A petition focused on the Synthese editors' disclaimer and on Beckwith's use thereof

Ingo Brigandt's comment here deserves its own post: 

Here is another petition, organized by those who are considering a boycott (as far as I know the plan is first have the petition and to decide whether to proceed with a boycott depending on the response of the editors-in-chief): http://www.petitiononline.com/Synthese/petition.html

This petition is stronger than the two created by Eric, as it includes the call to retract the disclaimer. The latter is to my mind non-negotiable at least for the following reason. In his response to Barbara Forrest (published in Synthese, but after the special issue), Francis Beckwith uses the issuing and unusual nature of the disclaimer as a major argument against her paper.

Some creationists instrumentalizing the disclaimer in some venues is not surprising, but it is not just the case that the EiCs opened the door to this (as an unfortunate side-effect), but they obviously approved Beckwith's response after having scrutinized it, so that the EiCs approve of using the disclaimer as an argument (even in their own venue).

Combine this the EiCs stating in their response to the boycott plan that "several articles included in the special issue contained language that is unacceptable" (my emphasis), responding to the guest editors' account by making explicit that the problem was not only Forrest's article. So by now we have a clear license by the EiCs to use the disclaimer against any article in the special issue, which cannot stand.

A real danger with leaving the disclaimer as it is, or at least not mitigating Beckwith's use of it, is the extremely high probability that the next time Professor Forrest testifies to the LA state legislature (as she often does in these matters, and no doubt will soon in the debate on SB 70, which would repeal the stealth creationist Lousiana Science Education Act or LSEA), some ID partisan will claim she has been "refuted" in the pages of a prestigious philosophy journal and that therefore her testimony should be discounted if not ignored. 

Philosophers and others outside Louisiana should never forget that this affair is far more than an intramural discussion of professional obligations, as seriously -- and rightly so -- as we take those concerns.

For there are real world  effects at work here. Effects as real world as it gets: we're talking about a state law in which the work conditions of Louisiana public school teachers (who are our colleagues too, let us not forget), and the quality of the science education afforded Louisiana public school students, are at stake. Which makes it all the more admirable that in a climate of drastic budget cuts to higher education our colleague Barbara Forrest is willing to carry the fight against a Legislature and a Governor who have already passed and signed a stealth creationism bill. 

UPDATE, M 25 April, 3:05 pm CDT: The eminent philosopher of biology Mohan Matthen has a powerful comment at Leiter Reports that should be read in its entirety. It begins: 

I read the Forrest article in Synthese, and am having some difficulty figuring out why the EiCs consider it discourteous, impolite, or (most of all) unfair. The article is among other things an examination of the epistemology of ID theory, and in particular of whether inferences to intelligent design can be considered epistemologically on a par with scientific reasoning. It considers this question in the context of whether it is constitutional to permit the teaching of ID theory in public schools on the grounds that it is science, just as Darwinian evolution is.

In this context, Forrest provides a lengthy exposé of religious rhetoric by some of the proponents of ID theory, including some that predates their entry into the ID debate. This exposé is couched in emotionally charged language, to be sure, but only in response to what Forrest reasonably takes to be a public policy aim of the ID proponents and their own rhetoric....

The conclusion: 

The Forrest paper is not an original work of philosophy, and is not intended to be. However, it is a powerful piece of contemporary historical research and is, moreover, quite astute in its exposure of philosophical fallacy. Even on a "pure philosophy" level, it is instructive to read of the perverted uses to which bad philosophical argument can be put. Moreover, its rhetorical temperature is perfectly appropriate in a work of this sort.

Online petition (Synthese): Give Barbara Forrest a chance to respond in Synthese (etc)

One aspect of the Synthese controversy that has bothered me most (I believe Rich Booher first called attention to it in discussion) is that in his invited and almost certainly unrefereed response, Francis Beckwith has used the editors' vague disclaimer to discredit Barbara Forrest (this is even clear from the abstract of his article posted online). Even if we trust the editors' public defenders that no public pressure was put on them to publish Beckwith's piece (yet the editors fail to address this issue fortrighly in their public statement!), the editors and their defenders should recognize that one of the premier philosophical venues is being used to help discredit a very brave philosophical colleague. And let there be no mistake: it really takes bravery for a professor at a public university to stand up to the powerful and well-funded Creatonism lobbey in Louisiana!

The editors of Synthese should also realize that by publishing Beckwith's particular piece they are enhancing Beckwith's credibility in the political arena. All of this is pretty galling once we remind ourselves of the historic roots of Synthese in scientific philosophy and public enlightenment projects. This is a clear instance where a procedural focus on politeness misses the very simple political fact that scientific authority is being abused by folk, however civil their tone, that have aims inimical to public reason.

There is no doubt that Brian Leiter's call for a boycott caught the discipline's attention. Before it comes to a boycott there are still many ways in which Synthese can right some of the present wrongs in addition to offering a forthright explanation of the circumstances surrounding Beckwith's publication. For example, why not give Barbara Forrest the uncensored right to respond to Beckwith article? In many journals authors who are the target of discussion pieces are allowed such a response.

To that end, I have started AN online petition: one that calls on the editors of Synthese to grant Barbara Forrest the right to respond to Beckwith's article within the pages of Synthese; (I have disabled another one that calls on the editors to explain in forthright fashion to explain the circumstances of the publication of Francis Beckwith's article in Synthese.) The petition is very narrowly focused (I have added no background texts so that folk can just support these actions).

Update [ES]: Brian Leiter has also started a closely related petition. It overlaps, in part, with the second petition above (and this is why I disabled the link).

Update 2 [JP]: see above for an argument in support of Leiter's petition.

Barbara Forrest's brave and important work on behalf of real science education in Louisiana deserves our admiration and support

UPDATE: M 25 April, 10:53 am CDT: see here and here for petitions. Please also note the real world implications of the Synthese editors' disclaimer noted here.

-------

The Synthese controversy will have at least one good outcome if it brings the brave and important work of Barbara Forrest on behalf of real science education in Louisiana to the attention of the philosophical community. She deserves our admiration and support for the fight she's helping to lead. 

Background: In 2008 the Louisiana State Legislature passed the "Louisiana Science Education Act" (LSEA). You can read Forrest's analysis of this "stealth creationism" bill by following the link on this web page, or by going directly to the PDF.

Forrest often posts on the Louisiana Coalition for Science blog, which covers the Discovery Institute, hunts down "stealth creationism" around the country, and in particular fights the pernicious effects of the LSEA. 

Professor Forrest is not alone in her effort; this campaign run by a Baton Rouge High School student is particularly inspiring.

Some good news: 42 Nobel Laureates have written an open letter in support of SB 70, which would repeal the LSEA. Read the text of the letter here, or below the break. 

On the response from Synthese: unanswered questions

Readers will note that we have published a response from the editors of Synthese regarding their recent issue on “Intelligent Design”.  This issue became public through Brian Leiter’s blog, where he posted a letter from the guest editors of the ID issue – Glenn Branch and James Fetzer – alleging various forms of misconduct, and where he (Brian) also called for a boycott of Synthese until an adequate response was forthcoming.  We have not endorsed or condemned the call for a boycott; we have instead asked for debate on it. 

Here, we open the issue for comments, and note the crucial gaps in the published response.

In our view, most of the serious charges in the Branch-Fetzer letter were not addressed at all. 

Branch and Fetzer claim that the editorial disclaimer calls into question their professionalism.  Do the editors-in-chief of Synthese acknowledge this?  Stand behind it?  Deny that this was intended? 

Branch and Fetzer claim that they were twice assured by one of the editors-in-chief that there would be no disclaimer.  Do the editors-in-chief deny this?  Do they endorse this behavior?

Branch and Fetzer and others have raised the issue that the allegations of professionally improper tone are attributed vaguely rather than specifically, implying that the latter would be more appropriate in this case.  This vagueness is not changed by the current response. The editors-in-chief  say this: “we judged that several articles included in the special issue contained language that is unacceptable: neutral readers of the issue will find no difficulty in identifying such passages.”  Given the heated discussion on the matter, one has to say that this claim has been empirically refuted, at least unless “neutral” is being used in some very substantive manner.  If this is a charge of professional "unacceptability" – as opposed, say, to some suggestion that an optimally polite and kind writer would write differently – then it is certainly not clear what is being charged.  Do the editors-in-chief deny that in making charges of professional inappropriateness they ought to identify who is being charged and on the basis of what comments?  If not, are they willing to make the identifications now? 

Finally, as Jon Cogburn emphasized recently, there is the huge outstanding issue of whether the editors-in-chief were pressured by supporters of ID, specifically whether there were implied threats of legal action.  This is, for all the reasons Jon pointed out, a crucial issue for the profession given the underlying political issues.

These as we see them, are some of the issues not addressed in the response.  We invite discussion.

Mark Lance

Eric Schliesser

A response by the editors of Synthese

We have been asked to publish this note from the editors of Synthese.

In response to the controversy concerning a decision by the editors of Synthese involving a recent special issue on "Evolution and its Rivals":

We are committed to the view that Synthese, in addition to being a venue for pure philosophy, also be a forum for debate on issues which extend into the public sphere. In particular, we believe that philosophical debate concerning the role of religion in science and public policy is important. This is why we accepted the proposal to pursue this special issue.

We allow guest editors sufficient freedom to craft intellectually significant special issues. At the same time, as editors of Synthese we must ensure the highest standards of politeness and fairness.  This is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, especially with respect to highly-charged matters.

We judged that several articles included in the special issue contained language that is unacceptable: neutral readers of the issue will find no difficulty in identifying such passages. We placed no restriction whatsoever on content. After internal resolution failed, we added a preface as a way of acknowledging our ultimate responsibility, while expressing our regret for the breach of our standards.

While we grant anyone's right to judgment calls different from ours, the simple fact remains that it was our task as editors to make them in this case. Of course, there are lessons to be learnt from what happened regarding our internal procedures, and Synthese will do that.

Finally, we would emphasize once more that maintaining standards of courtesy in academic writing is not a matter of taking sides. It is beneficial to all parties interested in the pursuit of truth. The special issue is out there now, and we trust that colleagues interested in its theme will now proceed to discuss the actual contents.

Johan van Benthem

Vincent F. Hendricks

John Symons

Editors-in-Chief, Synthese

What is at stake in the Synthese brouhaha (please share thoughts!)

I just want to forcefully reiterate something Brian said yesterday in his blog. Mohan Matthen had written.

[H]ere is the summary [of what transpired]: Special Issue [of Synthese] consisting of critiques of intelligent design; Editors-in-Chief correspond with author of Special Issue paper, demanding changes, after that paper has been published on-line; they make these demands without the consent of the Guest Editors; most shocking of all, E-in-C’s insert a disclaimer regarding the Special Issue.

It seems clear that whatever their motives or exculpations, the E-in-C’s acted unprofessionally. Surely they should admit this and apologize. Nobody wants to participate in a “boycott” of philosophers as distinguished as they are, but they made an error in their public capacity, and they should simply make things right, with as little fuss as possible.

To which Leiter responded:

This leaves out only the role that intensive lobbying and threats of 'libel' from the ID crowd played in producing this outcome. . .

This is an extremely important point, possibly the central one.