James Powell's response to Mark Boslough regarding the destruction of Tall el-Hammam
James Powell, an eminent geologist, now retired, has just published an excoriating review of Mark Boslough's criticism of the recent Tall el-Hammam paper, one of the most widely read scientific papers of the last decade. This paper argues that a cosmic impact destroyed Tall el-Hammam circa 1650 BCE. This event might have been remembered in Biblical terms as the destruction of Sodom.
Rather than critiquing this paper in the usual way through publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal, Mark instead published his ad-hominem-laden review in the Skeptical Enquirer, a magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Enquiry (CSI) (oddly, it has the tagline "The Magazine for Science and Reason").
Much of his article was a targeted attack against a member of the Comet Research Group, Allen West. You can see much the same kind of attack on Allen on the talk page of Wikipedia's article on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH).
In his paper, published in the open-access peer-reviewed research journal "Research Ethics", Powell effectively argues that Boslough's attack-piece is unethical. If true, what does it say about the YDIH Wikipedia article?
Some key lines from Powell's article are posted below...
Many scholarly organizations proscribe ad hominem arguments. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2017) says, “Never include personal criticism in a written piece of work.” The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, n.d.) Code of Conduct prohibits “engaging in biased, demeaning, intimidating, coercive, harassing, or hostile conduct or commentary ... [and] personal attacks of any kind.” Brown et al. (2018) provide several other examples of scholarly associations that bar ad hominem arguments. Consequently, scholarly journals typically ban “ad hominems.”
In a 1994 address reprinted in Skeptical Inquirer, Carl Sagan, one of the founders of CSI, said that “Science requires an almost complete openness to all ideas. Ad hominem arguments—arguments about the personality of somebody who disagrees with you—are irrelevant. . ..” (Sagan, 1995). Brown et al. (2018) write, “In our opinions and in the opinions of some scientific societies, such attacks on fellow scientists on nonscientific grounds are unethical. . .Individuals engaging in ad hominem attacks in scientific discourse should be subject to censure.” They note that “In science, three things matter: the data, the methods used to collect the data, and the logic connecting the data and methods to conclusions. Everything else is a distraction.”
And from the conclusion;
The rise of the Internet, and especially social media, has offered scientists an easy and powerful route to publicizing their ideas. Yet with great power must come great responsibility. We scientists must be careful not to ruin our shared endeavor through misuse of such channels. The ad hominem attack, especially, can be damaging. When exponentially magnified by multitudes of “likes” and “retweets,” it can become a form of bullying that can do serious harm to reputations, careers, families, mental health and, ultimately, lives.
If ad hominem arguments were normalized, true scientific debate could be drowned out by the clamor of increasingly bitter personal attacks. Unlike politics and law, where elections and trials bring closure, scientific debates often carry on until one side dies. What chance would true scientific debate have in a climate where ad hominem attacks abound?
One result might be that scientists would feel the need to vet the personal history of researchers they hire or with whom they collaborate. They might be tempted to investigate the backgrounds of researchers in opposing camps. But, this prying would be highly prejudicial if not illegal. Many able researchers could be effectively barred from science.
Moreover, it is important that scientists should feel able to make bold and controversial claims without fear of personal attack. The use of ad hominem arguments could have a chilling effect on scientific progress. Not only could researchers become overly cautious, but promising scholars might be discouraged from scientific careers.
In any case, unlike politics or law, science has a key attribute unavailable to other forms of debate that enables it to rise above them: replication. While a political or criminal event cannot be replicated, scientific experiments can be. This is why scientists include sufficient details in research publications to allow others to replicate them. This strategy was invaluable in the Younger Dryas impact debate. While a few research groups could not replicate the findings initially, later groups did so and explained why those early attempts had failed. Key lines of evidence for an impact were reproduced by several independent research groups, leading Sweatman to conclude that the Younger Dryas impact had been confirmed.
The main lesson of this case study is that rebuttal of a peer-reviewed article should itself be peer-reviewed. This prevents unethical accusations and practices and protects authors and science itself from error. If the response does not satisfy opponents, they can call for further research, especially for replication studies. The self-correcting nature of science is its greatest asset and makes it stand apart from most other endeavors of society.
Importantly, Powell's article is published in the Journal "Research Ethics". This means it has been peer-reviewed by experts in the ethics of research and approved by an expert editor.
Also, note that David Miano took a similar line of attack against me. Rather than publishing his rebuttal of my peer-reviewed work in a proper journal, he instead published his non-peer-reviewed thoughts on YouTube (a bastion of ethical research!), also laden with many ad-hominems that verge on the defamatory. If Boslough's article is unethical, then surely Miano's YT videos are too. You can find comments about me similar to Miano's on several Wikipedia pages, including the YDIH talk page.
Comments
Post a Comment