h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry, first para. should read:

"This whole mess has moved well beyond religion and creationism. It's now about rudeness, and how to conduct oneself. I wish it had stayed on track. I am interested in evolution, not abuse."

ZSF,

Seems to me that on this particular issue, communication is not something that has happened or is likely to happen. Ignore him and he'll go away? In my experience, that does tend to be true of all but the most dedicated zealots and emotional/intellectual bullies, although the former tend to get more shrill and the latter more nasty before giving up and moving on to a more receptive audience. I'd actually be interested in an entry from Josh on creationist thinking. I get the feeling that he'd do okay writing about what he knows (creationism), as opposed to what he doesn't know (science).


Ste,

I've read a lot of the backlog. I agree that Josh's behavior in regards to his creationism/evolution entry has been rude and arrogant. I'm a bit troubled by the glee that several people showed after the shredding of his entry. As the anger level rose, the maturity level seemed to drop. That'll happen. Now I'm just waiting for the anger level to drop so the maturity level can rise again. I know that everyone involved, with the possible exception of Josh, who really IS 16, can cool down and move on.

NBY

NBY,

It all came down to frustration in the end. If he didn't agree with criticism *he did not say why*, he just didn't incorporate it into his entry. This all generated a lot of anger, built up over time. I think it was impressive how people stayed so patient for so long.

To give him a chance, perhaps this is the way he thinks it works around here. You submit a piece to PR, wait for people to say how to improve it, and do the stuff you agree with, without comment.

Or perhaps that is how creationists debate. Actually, I cannot imagine *any* debate amongst the creationist community: "The bible says it happened like this, and that's that". I do not see why some religion feels the need to measure up to science in science's own backyard, they're bound to lose.

Anyway, nice talking to you.

Ste

Hi Ste,

I guess one of the things that troubles me (in general, not just specific to this particular non-debate) is that so many people act like they think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.

As an aside, did you know that a 1981 Arkansas law requires that 'Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science'. It goes on to define creation-science.

'"Creation-science"' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
Separate ancestry for man and apes;
Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds'.

MODERATORS: The above quotation is taken from law, and is therefore public domain.

NBY

Hi NBY,

I agree with you. Religion can sit perfectly happily with science.

I suppose that what I was saying before, is when religion tries to use scientific language to justify itself it will fail. Especially when it is at odds with current scientific consensus.

Science cannot disprove God for the same reason. It is beyond it's limits. Science knows that it is a spiritual question and doesn't even try; it has to be described using the language of religion.

They are *not* mutually exclusive, but they both should know their own limitations when it comes to describing each other.

Ste (oh go on then: )

Oh I forgot,

On the Arkansas Law front:

Is that still law? I thought that was repealed? I could be wrong. I remember seeing the definition of evolution that was used in that case. It was horrendously flawed, and has been subsequently used all the time by creationists in their strawman arguments. I'm can't find what the actual definition is. I'll get back to you.

"Creation-science"
I hate to see the word "science" twisted in that way. It is not science. It was one of the reasons why Josh offended me. Scientists have a responsibilty to be careful and as objective as possible. Nothing with such a blatant agenda should be attached to the word "science". Just my opinion .

Ste

Your point, Ste. I didn't research deeply enough. That Arkansas law was passed in 1981 and ruled unconstitutional in 1982.

There's what seems, on the surface, to be a fairly well-balanced web site sponsored by an ORGanization called religioustolerence. I haven't gone past the surface, so I don't know that it really does maintain its balance.

NBY

Josh,

I just couldn't walk away from this attack on you without saying a couple of things.

First of all, no one who has posted in this thread has the authority to be able to say that your article will not be accepted for the edited guide. They are clearly hoping you will go away and leave them alone, but they cannot do much more than continue to make their displeasure known.

Next, there have been any number of people who have posted to Peer Review with explicit messages attached to their work saying that they had no intention of ever making changes to what they had written or some similar sentiment. Such an attitude is not likely to endear one to any of us who care what goes in the guide, but there it is. Posting to Peer Review is the only way to get an article recommended for the edited guide, unless one is one of the editors.

There are a number of scouts any one of which might recommend your article. The editors would then decide if it was going to be accepted for further consideration. No scuout has the ability to say on his own that an article will not be accepted, though all of them toegether might make a pact to never recommend something -- not terribly likely.

Assuming that your article is recommended and accepted as pending, it then goes to a sub-editor who can change anything s/he cares to about the article and never bother telling you about it. Then the editors look at the sub-editor's work and make any changes *they* care to. The finished article could then be published with a deliberately insulting reference such as Hoovooloo supplied above as part of it and you could do nothing about it.

Once it's been published on the front page, in whatever form it ends up, absolutely any researcher can attach a posting to the article that can say pretty much whatever s/he might choose so long as it does not outright violate the Terms and Conditions of the site.

Having said all that, I should say that I don't feel your article should have the word 'scientific' in it's title. I do feel that your article *does* spend by far the majority of its discussion attacking evolution. There is no significant support of creationism, scientific or otherwise, which I take to be a failure on your part.

The only suggestion I could make that might lead you to finding a way you can trust to have your work properly criticized is that you take it to your minister for the name of a scientist you could talk to for advice.

Barton

Barton's advice is sound, Josh.

NBY's comment:

'I'd actually be interested in an entry from Josh on creationist thinking. I get the feeling that he'd do okay writing about what he knows (creationism), as opposed to what he doesn't know (science).'

echoes what I said earlier (although it's probably more elegantly put). How about it, Josh?

Hi Barton

I felt an odd emotional response to your posting above. Disappointment was certainly part of it. Mild nausea would describe the 'physical' manifestation of that reaction. Frustration is certainly part of it too.

I and others have tried to have a conversation with Josh but not had *any* response. You turn up and (whether you have read all the relavent posts in this and other threads or not) just wade in and more or less suggest that Josh has been somehow 'mistreated' by people in PR.

I assume that Peer Review is about discussion. You seem to imply that people have been unreasonable in their attitudes and comments. I agree that it has taken an unfortunate turn, but I *don't* agree that there has been an 'attack' on Josh. He is not even *present* enough to attack!

I'm not talking to Josh here (what would be the point in *that*?), I'm talking to you, Barton. I wanted to tell you that I felt (just slightly, I'm not *that* sensitive ) hurt by your implication that 'poor old Josh' had been thoughtlessly and maliciously attacked by 'those nasty, prejudiced bigots' in Peer Review (I realise these were not your own words).

Either you or I have totally misunderstood what has happened here.

*sigh*

Spiff

Hi Josh and folks,

I made an entry that's relevant to all this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A671717, tell me what you think. Be brutal. It's a summary of my experience with creation-science etc etc.



Ste

Spiff

I have been following this whole situation from the first moment that I heard someone say with horror that someone was trying to submit an article attacking evolution and supporting creationism.

Largely, I saw no point in contributiong to that discussion since it was clear that the article was childish, not-balanced, poorly structured. I *am* impressed by Josh's skill as a writer but not with his understanding of the scientific fields he attempts to 'debunk' nor with his understanding of scientific method in general.

I know that you and others have been trying to engage Josh in dialogue and that s/he has refused. I know that he has submitted his article four times (though I missed reading one of them at some point). I have seen significant improvement from the first submission but a general failure on hir part to answer most of the, largely, reasonable criticisms of his argument. That is well and good. I have, myself, been attacked in the past for having the expectation that the author has any obligation to read or use any of the comments offered on hir submission.

I will readily grant that Peer Review can and often has improved the quality of articles that ultimately made it into the the guide. That is what it is intended to do. It doesn't always do that. It isn't always allowed to do that. So what?

If the Josh's response to criticism has been poor, that is his right as author. The contributions of the peers have been almost exclusively attacks, ranging from vitriolic to mild suggestsions that he change the title and, essentially, write about something else. Those critics were within their rights as well. There have certainly been extremes on this topic and I am not surprised because the whole issue is essentially a clash of faiths: Josh's faith in creationism and the h2g2 scientific community's faith in evolution. Faiths are not subject to discussion and, more significantly, they tend to rather arbitrarily redefine the language, making it difficult to communicate.

That was in Peer Review. That's what Peer Reveiw is about.

What are all of you doing here in Josh's home space? Why are you telling him to go away? Why are you berating him for being rude while laughing at the way what he wrote is being ridiculed? Why are you suggesting that what he wrote could never be accepted when you know that it could be despite all your protests? In short, why did you all carry your debate from Peer Review into a personal attack of his space and self?

If you want to speak about a feeling of personal nausea then that is the feeling I had when I read what was written here. I don't like speaking out against people whom I have had pleasant conversations and spirited discussions with in the past. But, I wasn't going to just walk away from this sort of attack.

You say you don't consider Josh present enough to attack. Then why are you here posting in his space? Obviously, you aren't speaking for all the others who have posted here. Why can't you just say allow that you all said all you had to say about the article in Peer Review and then step back to allow the process to do what the process always does: make its choices and allow the rejects to flow through the drain at the bottom of the slush pile. Can you see that you have allowed yourself to become emotionally invested in attempting to force Josh to say that s/he was wrong and all of you were right?

Ask yourself why this one subject has provoked so much animosity that it has overflowed into an attempt to chastise this author for something that has been going on openly in Peer Review since the beginning of the process. If you don't think it has, then I suggest you talk to some of the scouts who have been around from the beginning.

Then you can take that virtual scourge out of your hand and realize that you and the rest of the crowd were ganging up on a very promising 16 year-old and confirming every sterotypical idea he might have about 'godless scientists.' I don't think you are bigots (and I thank you for saying that you saw that as an implication and not as my words.) But, you all have been acting as if you were bigots. You all have all been acting as if *you* had received the devine word and that all other viewpoints were stupid, wrong, and evil. And that sort of thing will happen in Peer Review, as regertable as it might be. People will express their opinions. This is not the first time and it will not be the last. When it leaves, peer review, as it has here. That is reprehensible.

Josh has not come to your space and attacked you for being so rude as to be unwilling to see his devinely inspired viewpoint. Has he?

Why are you here?

I've said what I said before to Josh. Now I've spoken to you. I will not continue this discussion with you here, particularly since you have proclaimed that you see no point in talking to Josh. If you wish to reply, please feel free to start a thread on my space.

Barton

Before anyone wastes even more energy and time, it's worth pointing out that when it comes to ignoring perfectly reasonable questions because they happen to be inconveniently opposed the point he's trying to make, Barton is the master to Josh's apprentice.

We were recently both present in a discussion about the concept of responsibility for one's actions. I say "we were both present" because I was engaging in discussion, whereas Barton was just typing and either not reading replies or reading them and ignoring them if they happened to make points he had a problem addressing (sound familiar?). Attempting to get Barton to clarify his position, I asked him a simple question. He ignored me utterly. I asked him again. He ignored me again. I tried and tried repeatedly to get him to clarify his position by answering a very, very simple question, and I got no response from him whatever.

Unlike Josh, Barton has not the excusing qualities of brevity of postings, youth, inexperience, or fundamentalist religion to explain his rudeness and ignorance.

It's also interesting to note that, in much the same way that gay people have reappropriated the word "queer", Barton has now been called "pompous" so many times by so many people that he wears the word as a sort of badge of pride.

I say these things just so anyone who hasn't come across him before elsewhere knows exactly what they're dealing with, rather than have them be disappointed by yet another one-sided non-debate.

H.

I will certainly not move this discussion to your space, Barton. It's a technical issue: We are all *here*, and if you or Josh consider this an ugly spot on Josh's space, it's your problem.

But I see your point, and by and large you're right. None of us was prepared to see an author responding that reluctantly to any comments. Therefore, and due to some bad manners, the threads exploded. And yes, Spiff, Josh *has* been attacked, in my opinion even humiliated.

Now we know this, and if Josh doesn't answer to my first remark about his next article, I won't write a second posting. I hope all the others will do the same.

Style and quantity surely have been inadequate (*I* was not responsible for that), however, Barton, the direction was correct: the article didn't meet h2g2's standards, h2g2's core is discussion, and if somebody doesn't accept both, they must be told, especially on their personal space. By the way, whatever faith or age may be responsible for that -- I dislike people who don't want to listen, but want me to listen.

To the 'crowd' as Barton calls them: Josh was an easy target, and you made extensive use of that. I hope that this won't happen again. If you say of Josh that he cannot understand important points, prove that you can.


Hoovooloo: Don't tell a person how to think about a stranger, even if it's meant as 'kind help'. (Unbelievable.)

I'm not telling you how to think. I'm merely warning you what to expect. The fact that he's a "stranger" to you only makes the warning more necessary.

If you don't want to take the advice, you are of course completely at liberty to do so.

If you want links to places where Barton has clearly exhibited the ignorant behaviour I'm describing, I can provide them, and you can then confirm what I'm saying yourself. I haven't done so already only because ploughing through the acres of guff he wrote just to confirm for yourself the fact that he's evasive, dissembling and unwilling to address simple questions where they contradict what he's banging on about is tedious. But if you don't want to take *my* word for it, I'll post the links if you ask for them.

H.

Ah yes, and so I am demolished by one who's shrill and childish cries of outrage were described as being merely better spelled than the tantrums of Playboy Reporter.

Since he feels he is entitled, by right of his superior logical position and education to attack me for having dared not to answer him, I suppose I shall have to answer him . . . someday. . . perhaps.

Meanwhile, Hoovooloo, I am pleased to see that your attack on Josh's article was merely gratuitous and served only your own amusement. After all you had been sorely tried and severely challenged. Yes, you are truly exemplary of the Peer Review process. And all could do no better than to take you as the model for their own actions.

All the more reason for you to have shown up here to properly chastise in so mature and intellectually objective a fashion someone so deserving of your vast, awe inspiring, and all-leveling bludgeon-like wit.

You too might choose to come to my space to continue the attack that in the past you seemed to have said was not worth your further attention. Ah, well. We all make mistakes.

As far as my so called 'pompous' style of writing goes, I am well aware that I can sound both like I have an opinion and that I believe that opinion is correct. Hoovooloo, of course, would never be guilty of either of those grievous faults. Naturally, I accept that label, it was applied to me by Hoovooloo whose opinion once had value.

So it goes.

Barton

Pompous, sage, rosemary, and thyme.

Oh, by the way, has anyone noticed that Hoovooloo and I no longer seem to get along?

Barton

Cefpret,

Actually, it's more Josh's problem than mine since I won't need to be faced with it every time I return to my home page. But, I suppose that is why you are here. Making a statement saying that you are tired of being ignored.

"We are all *here*..." camped out in righteous protest, I suppose. Fine, the system lets you do it.

Good for you for having said that you made your point and that you will retire gracefully.

Good for you as well for being willing to consider what I wrote whether you agree with me or not.

I agree with you that the article does not meet the standards set forth. I, however, will continue to assert that such a failure has not prevented other articles from being accepted and does not preclude this one from being accepted either. It *should* not be accepted. It *probably* will not be accepted. Still, this is not a perfect world nor a perfect web site.

If I said that he could not understand anything, I should not have and I apologize for suggesting it. There is no way I could know what he can or cannot understand.

Barton

Hi Barton, and indeed Josh, :) I assume you don't mean 'Why are you here?' in the larger, philosophical sense. Hello again Barton, :) Thanks (without irony) for raising my spirits with your comment above. Without being involved or becoming (seriously) involved, I did investigate the recent controversy to which you have both refered. Since I didn't know either of you before (not that I do now, but, you know...) I'm not really in a position to say, but I like your way of putting the current situation. You've gotta laugh... as my ol' Grandad always used to say. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F78168?thread=156554&latest=1#p1563983 As for the 'record' in the title, I just wanted to say that I have only (as far as I recall) been involved in the arguments about the content in my very first post, and I stuck mostly to style and grammar stuff. I enjoy talking to people who are interested in lanuage and writing. I also enjoy having a go at writing myself. I like PR for the possibility it gives of sharing ideas, learning from others and hopefully passing on some constructive feedback to my 'peers'. I have absolutely no desire to 'prove Josh wrong'. I have never expressed such an idea. The only thing that could be described as a 'personal attack' from me was a 'perhaps ill-judged' gag about a split infinitive. (By the way, you're in the running for the New Year most unlikely split infinitive award yourself with the wonderful - "to rather arbitrarily redefine" I know, if it was ill-advised the first time, it's probably ill-advised this time too. But you seem to (quite genuinely) have a sense of humour :)). Besides, I have never been aware that Josh himself had been upset about the gag. I expect he has a SoH too. :) >>You all have all been acting as if *you* had received the devine >>word and that all other viewpoints were stupid, wrong, and evil. Have I? Can you point out an instance of *me* doing anything of the kind, please. I must have been drunk at the time! :) >>Why can't you just say allow that you all said all you had to say >>about the article in Peer Review and then step back to allow the >>process to do what the process always does: make its choices and >>allow the rejects to flow through the drain at the bottom of the >>slush pile. Can you see that you have allowed yourself to become >>emotionally invested in attempting to force Josh to say that s/he >>was wrong and all of you were right? Hmm. Well, see above, really. I may feel that I 'want' to try to make my point to Josh, but frankly it has nothing to do with his views on Why *we* are here and where *we* came from. It has to do with human relations (even through PC terminals), politeness and communication. I don't want to tell him I think he is wrong. I want to tell him that I feel he has been rude. That doesn't seem so odd, does it? Specifically though, regarding your description of the PR system, you must know that one of the key things that Josh did to upset people was re-post without major changes several hours after it had been binned. I'm sure it wasn't the first repeat post without changes anyone had ever seen, but I believe for many it *was* the quickest! What do you do if the 'process' is hampered by some-one refusing rejection and simply bunging the same old slush on to the top? >>Then you can take that virtual scourge out of your hand and realize >>that you and the rest of the crowd were ganging up on a very >>promising 16 year-old and confirming every sterotypical idea he might >>have about 'godless scientists.' Where does this come from? Do you recognise me as an individual? Have you read *any* of the posts I have made in these discussions? I don't know how you can justify 'accusing' me of "ganging up on etc. " :( ?? >>particularly since you have proclaimed that you see no point in >>talking to Josh. Aha! I see you *have* read something that I posted. Great! :) But I would say taking this out of context (I certainly didn't start out with this attitude - it is Josh who h

Hi Cefpret,

What a sorry affair this whole business has been. I for one feel I have been suckered and should have known better.

>>And yes, Spiff, Josh *has* been attacked, in my opinion even >>humiliated.

I have not said the contrary. I have said and wish to maintain, that *I* have not attacked anybody.

I don't enjoy all the negative vibes around this matter, and I have only just realised that I could have walked away sooner. I thought I was acting out of positive motives.

--> Barton, ,

Although I don't think you were very fair on me in the way you described my involvement in all this stuff, I would like to say thanks for one key and perfectly valid thing that you said. Funny how these things slip your mind when you're feeling hard done by.

Yes, my mistake was becoming more emotionally involved than I should have, in a question that really shouldn't concern me. The key difference between what you said and the way I see my mistake is, IMHO, that you seem to think I want to prove something about Cre vs Ev, whereas I believe I have simply become too involved in trying to convince some-one not to be rude. Anyway, credit where it's due, I certainly was not thinking clearly about it. I *cared* that someone was being rude and tried to stop them inviting rudeness in return.

I don't know if I well care next time. Is it better that I should care next time, or that I shouldn't? It seems sad to spread that kind of negative thinking where-ever you go. I hope this was a one off for everybody concerned.

I think I probably will care. I like PR and this is the first time I have seen it go wrong so unpleasantly (I'm no veteran around here, I know). I hope it will be a while before I see it again.

I'm not unsubscribing to this now, because there may be more to say, or someone may ask me something directly, or whatever - but as far as I am concerned, there is nothing more I can bring to it, and I doubt there is much that it can bring to me.

Josh, if you're listening, I hope you have never felt directly instulted, attacked or demeaned in any way by anything that I have said or done. There has never been any intent to do so on my part.

Good luck with the writing, if anything, I think many people have been pretty complimentary about that, so try to take that away from this experience and do something positive with it.


Seeya around everyone,
Spiff