Comments on: More on Conservapedia: Schlafly v. Science, Round 5

By: More on Conservapedia: Schlafly v. Science, Round 5

More on Conservapedia: Schlafly v. Science, Round 5 — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:43:16 +0000

[...] Link to the original site [...]

By: mjr256

mjr256 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:57:33 +0000

My favorite line of Lenski’s in his second response is still the part where he tells Andy something to the effect of: it’s not that I wrote a paper claiming to have seen a unicorn; it’s that I’ve got a whole herd of unicorn right now living in my lab. Lenski kicks ass.

By: John

John — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:55:43 +0000

@ Gotchaye – “I have no clue what he’s hoping to accomplish – assuming that he’s more evil than stupid, he’s got to know that they’ll glance at this and toss it in the trash.”

When you’ve lied in public, if you aren’t going to eat your words you have to play the thing out to the end. Andy has called Lenski all sorts of things, and Lenski has refuted him. Andy knows that in his world silence = consent (and oh how I hate that concept) so he’s got to keep this up.

It’s kabuki, it really really is.

~ John

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:20:33 +0000

In fact, if I’m wrong and they do Ames, I’ll print out this page, eat it, and post the video on Youtube :)

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:19:43 +0000

It won’t be published though, so there won’t be any negative publicity. Top journals like PNAS have standards that apply to the quality of any letters they publish. They’re not going to make a special case for Schlafly, because, well, why should they publish the ramblings of every crank that writes in?

So I’ll repeat, PNAS won’t publish it, they may or may not explain why in a private letter back to Schlafly, and he’ll just write a load of garbage about how it was rejected due to a liberal conspiracy.

By: Ames

Ames — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:50:42 +0000

He definitely thinks negative publicity is positive. back in CP’s *ahem* heyday, they published with pride mainstream media reports mocking them. They’re like kindergarteners, proud of getting spanked for shoving crayons up a kid’s nose.

By: James F

James F — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:50:13 +0000

If Schlafly’s letter were to be published (PNAS letters are online-only, not in the journal proper), Lenski is entitled a response. It would be another smackdown, but in an official scientific forum. Perhaps he subscribes to the “all publicity is good publicity” belief?

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:50:02 +0000

This is a weird one. I may blog on it later.

Here’s how this is likely to play out though:

Schlafly sends his letter.
PNAS privately reject/ignore it.
Schlafly cries “I told you so! Liberal Conspiracy!! Even my letter took 14 days!!!”
We never get to see the response.

If I’m right, then this is going to be a very boring episode…

By: Gotchaye

Gotchaye — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:29:14 +0000

I don’t know what to think about this. I have no clue what he’s hoping to accomplish – assuming that he’s more evil than stupid, he’s got to know that they’ll glance at this and toss it in the trash. Is he gearing up to make a huge deal about how conservative voices are being shut out of PNAS when they properly ignore him? I can’t imagine that he’s serious about trying to get them to ‘correct’ Lenski, but I also just don’t see how this is particularly valuable theater for him.