Rejected for ideology only

A TSZ member recently made this claim:

Sanford’s recent paper with Cordova was rejected by multiple venues for bogus reasons. Everyone agreed the science is solid, but made up reasons why the paper should not be accepted.

And then is asked:

Name the venues and give their reasons for the rejection. 

I’ve actually been asking this for literally years over at UD, although not lately. The claim that papers are rejected not because of the science but instead because of some other reason is often made. But I’ve never seen any actual evidence of this. Has anyone?

In fact, it’s also the stated reason from some at UD as to why they don’t even attempt to formally publish their work, they know it would simply be rejected for ideological reasons only.

Yet despite many years of asking I have never once seen any evidence for this claim. So in this thread I’d like to see the paper that was submitted, the journal or other it was submitted to and the rejection itself.

If nobody can supply any such evidence then this OP can be used in rebuttal in the future when such claims are again made, as we all know they will be.

0

154 thoughts on “Rejected for ideology only

  1. Joe Felsenstein,

    His argument requires formal mathematical proofs. I am really not very familiar with the math bur hopefully Eric can comment.

    . Introduction
    Conservation of information theorems [1–3], especially the No Free Lunch Theorems (NFLT’s) [4–8], show that without prior information about a search environment or the target sought, one search strategy is, on average, as good as any other [9]. This is the result of the Horizontal NFLT presented in Section 3.2.
    A search’s difficulty can be measured by its endoge- nous information [1, 10–14] defined as
    IΩ=−log2p . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
    where p is the probability of a success from a random query [1]. When there is knowledge about the target lo- cation or search space structure, the degree to which the search is improved is determined by the resulting active information [1, 10–14].

    This may be why the sequence is used and possibly needed in the Weasel search. Natural selection is not really information about a target sequence. I think your idea of single mutation adaptive improvements is viable for certain adaptions but maybe not for constructing a new complex sequence where several changes to a single allele or non coding DNA sequence is required.

    0
  2. colewd: Natural selection is not really information about a target sequence

    Evolution doesn’t search for any specific target sequence. You’ll ride your sharpshooter fallacy hobbyhorse until its legs fall off.

    0
  3. colewd:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    His argument requires formal mathematical proofs.I am really not very familiar with the math bur hopefully Eric can comment.

    This may be why the sequence is used and possibly needed in the Weasel search. Natural selection is not really information about a target sequence.I think your idea of single mutation adaptive improvements is viable for certain adaptions but maybe not for constructing a new complex sequence where several changes to a single alleleor non coding DNA sequence is required.

    The various theorems that Dembski et al. invoke are supposed to apply to any scheme of selection, including the very simple one I used in my 2012 example. How come they don’t stop the selection in that example from putting more and more Specified Information into the genome? They blatantly don’t stop that.

    No one, not Dembski, not Marks, not Ewert, not Holloway, not Montañez — not even you — has explained why all these powerful and supposedly-relevant theorems can’t do that job. That’s what needs explaining.

    0
  4. colewd,

    You’re quoting from an article that addresses active information, which is very different from complex specified information.

    In “LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information” (2010; preprint 2008), Dembski and Marks silently abandoned the botched Law of Conservation of Information that Dembski stated in No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligent (2002). They reattached the term “Law of Conservation of Information,” but not Dembski’s essential notion of conservation, to some mathematical expressions involving active information. They made no reference at all to Dembski’s prior use of the term. I have emphasized this in the opening paragraphs of at least three OPs on this blog. Unfortunately, it seems that not even the adversaries of ID have gotten the message. So I won’t say that you’re oblivious because you’re a proponent of ID.

    EricMH is presently pulling a similar switcheroo. Last year, he was authoritatively asserting, here, there, and everywhere, that algorithmic specified complexity (ASC) is conserved in the sense that algorithmic mutual information is conserved. Last November, I proved the contrary in “Evo-Info 4: Non-Conservation of Algorithmic Specified Complexity.” You can see in the present thread that EricMH continues to say that ASC is conserved. What you cannot see is that Eric has abandoned his prior claim, and is now assigning a very different meaning to the term conservation than he previously did. The new sense of conservation comes from the BIO-Complexity article by George Montañez that was published last December, i.e., several weeks after I posted my proof that ASC is not conserved in the sense that algorithmic mutual information is conserved. If you search the new BIO-Complexity article by David Nemati and Eric Holloway, “Expected Algorithmic Specified Complexity,” you’ll find a reference to Montañez’s article, but no reference at all to algorithmic mutual information.

    ETA: I don’t mean to say that you’re quoting from “Life’s Conservation Law.”

    1+

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.