A boycott of Synthese 19 Apr 201122 Apr 2011 Brian Leiter has suggested a professional boycott of the journal Synthese until they admit their error in the disclaimer case, and I am the contact for messages supporting it from publishing philosophers. Leiter says: I would urge all philosophers to stop submitting to Synthese; to withdraw any papers they have submitted at Synthese; and to decline to referee for Synthese until such time as the editors acknowledge their error, and make appropriate amends. See the contact information above for Dr. Wilkins, who will keep track of philosophers participating in the boycott. and If you will participate in the boycott, please e-mail philosopher John Wilkins at the University of Sydney: john-at-wilkins-dot-id-dot-au. Let him know if you are willing to have your name made public in connection with the boycott. I am, of course, an Associate of the Philosophy department of the University of Sydney and do not act in any official capacity there, just for clarity’s sake. Complain to them all you like. It can’t lose me any salary. A further disclaimer – I published in that issue of the journal, but I do not think my paper was in any way involved in this disgraceful case. I will publicise the numbers of participants and if people would like their names mentioned (but not their email addresses), those too. Creationism and Intelligent Design Philosophy Religion Philosophy
Epistemology Can one do philosophy of religion? 6 Jan 20114 Oct 2017 A while back, philosopher of religion Keith Parsons (Houston, Clear Lake) announced that he could no longer do philosophy of religion because I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to… Read More
Biology On gods and religion 14 Oct 2009 I have just had a very pleasant meeting of the minds with Justin Barrett here in Oxford, who gave me some of his time. We agreed on a lot, and this has set me thinking that I should document some of the claims I intend to make in my research,… Read More
Evolution The World According to Genesis: Other peoples 8 Jun 200724 Nov 2022 This is the last section I will discuss in detail. It is, of course, the story of Cain and Abel. Cain is a farmer, and Abel is a herdsman. Both of these are agrarian pursuits, in the new agricultural period. But YHWH (just the single name now) seems to value… Read More
I’m not a professional philosopher , but I blogged my support (not that anyone seems to have noticed *sniff*)
While I can certainly see why the guest editors and authors would be upset by this case, I simply don’t see the crime warranting a boycott of Synthese. Furthermore, the idea that the editors caved to political pressure is a pretty serious accusation, but there is little evidence given to support this charge. It seems that the idea of including this disclaimer was discussed between at least some of the editors and the guest editors, rather than coming from out of the blue, so it looks like some elbows were thrown and perhaps a bad call was made in the interest of fairness. From what I know of the editors, this is a more plausible explanation than “caving in to the intelligent design lobby”. In all sincerity, I find Leiter treatment of this case heavy-handed. I appreciate a salacious piece of gossip as good as the next guy, but as the years have passed, and his reach into the profession has extended, I find myself thinking more and more: Enough. This is an unfortunate case for the guest editors and authors. I have a lot of sympathy for them. But, the retaliation against the editors–and against a very good journal–is too much. So, I will not support a boycott of Synthese.
Of course that is your right, and your reasons are, well, reasonable. However, can I say that a withdrawal of services in protest against actions that are unprofessional is hardly “retaliation”?
Can someone please explain what happened, not just a link to Leiter? I don’t really understand why he is so annoyed. He talks of sordid tales, but his post is so convoluted I’m not sure which details I am supposed to be mortified about.
The most solid point is that the journal editors made a disclaimer without doing the work of requesting minor revisions, which should have resolved the problem. A strong stand is warranted until they publicly rectify that, which involves more than removing the disclaimer from the online version. I also would not push speculation for motives of what caused them to include the disclaimer in the first place, while speculation might escalate unnecessary confrontation.
Or was it that they requested the revision only after the initial online publication? I’m having trouble grasping all of this case. 🙂
The told us there would not need to be revisions and no action would be taken. The articles went up online. Then the printed version added the disclaimer.
I suppose that I finally understand the case, and I’ll clarify what I previously wrote. The disclaimer in the printed version indicates one of two of the following unprofessional possibilities: 1. The journal editors never did their job of properly requesting minor revisions. 2. The journal editors did not need to request minor revisions and likewise did not need to include the disclaimer. In conclusion, this catch 22 needs a clear public apology by the editors. I will also clarify that nonacademic tone in the legitimate protest will only cause an unnecessary escalation of tempers, which could totally defeat the purpose of all that what written in the special edition. Or perhaps nonacademic tone in the protest would help only what was written by the proponents and their supporters.
The above last sentence should be, “Or perhaps nonacademic tone in the protest would help only what was written by the [ID] proponents and their supporters.”
It has taken me almost an hour to figure this case out. But here is the summary: Special Issue 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.
Here is my summary of the events, highlighting issues of potential editorial misconduct: (1) The general editors asked an author to make revisions, but (a) only after the paper had been published online, and (b) without notifying the guest editors, who upon learning this were opposed to after-publication revisions (and rather gave Beckwith the opportunity to publish a response). (2) The general editors inserted a disclaimer in the printed special issue, where (a’) the disclaimer was so vaguely worded as to suggest that many if not all papers were faulty and not just the one that was (erroneously) deemed to be problematic, (a”) none of the authors were informed in advance that the disclaimer was to actually be published, (b) the guest-editors were told that the plan to add the was dropped. My verdict: Whether an extraordinary measure like (1a) is legit depends on the situation, but in this case is moot as no revisions had to be done. Clearly objectionable are (1b) and (2b), which pertain to how the general editors interacted with the guest editors. General editors have the right to intervene if need be, but not to fail to inform the guest editors of this or even make false claims to them (who claim that a general editor had assured them that no disclaimer was to be published). A major issue is also putting all special issue contributions into disrepute (2a’), which is really bad editorial practice, and amounts to editorial misconduct given that some authors would have withdrawn their papers under these circumstances, had they been notified by the general editors (2a”).
In his first addendum Brian Leiter reproaches the editors for not responding substantively to him and draws inferences from the fact that they have not. And then in today’s update he again reproaches them for not answering his invitation to respond to the allegations. I have no wish to defend the editors’ handling of the special issue, and I do not object to Leiter’s bringing this matter to people’s attention, but I think the editors definitely should not respond to Brian Leiter, because Brian Leiter has no business appointing himself judge and jury.
Brave anonymous Fremder Mensch: the philosophical community is the judge and jury on this, not me. The editors had asked whether I would post a response, and I said I would post a substantive response to the concerns. I’ve had many friendly exchanges with Vincent Hendricks, and as a courtesy, I shared with him the letter from Branch & Fetzer in advance, indicating that I planned to go public with it. I did not reproach the editors, I just pointed out that their failure to dispute the Branch & Fetzer account naturally invites the conclusion that it is accurate. As a member of the philosophical community, wiht considerable experience with the ID charlatans, I have a right to be concerned about this incident, and many others share this concern. My blog provides a convenient forum for sharing the Branch & Fetzer letter, and also for sharing any response the editors care to offer. I’m sorry you have a complex about me, but that’s your issue, and it isn’t really relevant here.
Throughout this whole affair, I and others, including Brian, have been careful to state what is known, and not to make undue inferences. The facts are not in contention, and as Brian says, the philosophical community will decide. But for that to happen, someone had to say something first. Brian approached the editors and gave them time to respond, as did the Guest Editors. But if the community shrugs its shoulders collectively, Brian is not about to pronounce sentence – how could he?
Prof. Wilkins: Brian Leiter wrote: “The Synthese editors acknowledged my e-mail, but offered no substantive response on the merits to any of this; I am thus left with the impression that the Branch & Fetzer account of what transpired is accurate.” I don’t see any care here to, in your words, “not make undue inferences”. Leiter’s inference is not warranted. The editors’ silence indicates nothing at all, because they owe him no answer.
You should identify yourself, Fremder Mensch, so everyone can understand your interest in this matter–I suspect that would be quite revealing. Vincent Hendricks and I had quite a lot of back and forth about this matter. He said many things, but none that disputed the substance of the Branch & Fetzer message. An inference is clearly warranted, though it is also a defeasible one.
Brian Leiter, perhaps I was not clear. You are within your rights to call for a boycott. You may even threaten to call for a boycott unless they compose for you in particular an answer to the allegations, although I think it’s shameful for you to assign yourself so much importance. But the editors should definitely not yield to your threats. I think I speak for a lot of us in saying: We don’t want you to play policeman. Synthese has an editorial board. Thanks for publicizing the matter. Let’s see how the board handles it.
The editorial board was obviously asleep at the wheel, though perhaps now they will wake up. (Maybe your post is a case in point?) I did not suggest that a boycott turns on whether or not they “compose for [me] in particular an answer to the allegations.” This is nonsense, as you must surely realize. I urged philosophers to boycott Synthese unless they retract their disclaimer and apologize. I am quite sure you speak for no one but yourself and a handful of others connected to Synthese. That would be clear if, as I hope, John Wilkins gives us some more information about who you are. Really, shame on you. Own your words in the light of day, so that everyone can see your interest in this matter.
“That would be clear if, as I hope, John Wilkins gives us some more information about who you are.” Brian, there would need to be clear web abuse to justify a blog host to reveal identifying information of a pseudonymous poster.
“[T]here would need to be clear web abuse to justify a blog host to reveal identifying information of a pseudonymous poster.” Is this a claim about the law? About what would be ethical? Or something else? As an ethical proposition, it is silly: there is no moral entitlement to anonymity, other than in some exceptional cases. As a legal proposition, it is also silly. It is John Wilkins’s website, he can have whatever policy he wants on anonymity. I commend to your attention an essay by my colleague Saul Levmore on “The Internet’s Anonymity Problem,” in THE OFFENSIVE INTERNET (Harvard University Press, 2010).
“Is this a claim about the law? About what would be ethical?” Brian, I wouldn’t remotely suggest this as a legal issue. And if somebody broke John’s comment policy, then it wouldn’t suggest it as an ethical issue. But if somebody is posting within John’s comment policy, then it would be an ethical issue. However, if you want to try to build a case that Fremder Mensch is disregarding John’s comment policy, then I’m all ears.
Dear Prof. Wilkins: Thank you for hosting this discussion and letting it go in directions you might not have expected. Having opened up your blog to anonymous postings and allowed mine to go up, you would being betraying my trust if you now revealed to Brian Leiter whatever you can learn about my identity. I have published in Synthese and I have refereed papers for Synthese. I am personally acquainted in varying degrees with several members of the Editors in Chief and the editorial board. That is the extent of my ties to Synthese. Here are some of Brian Leiter’s own words: “Let me note that I have corresponded with Vincent Hendricks about this issue over the last several months. Last week, I forwarded them the open letter from Branch and Fetzer, indicating that I planned to suggest a boycott. The Synthese editors acknowledged my e-mail, but offered no substantive response on the merits to any of this; I am thus left with the impression that the Branch & Fetzer account of what transpired is accurate.” “Many readers have expressed concern about the events described in Monday’s post, but are withholding final judgment until the editors respond to the allegations. I have invited them to do so–indeed, invited them to do so last week, before my post, when I sent them the Branch/Fetzer letter, and several months ago, when I first learned of the issue.” On the basis of these words, it seems pretty clear that he wrote to the editors and told them, not in just these words, of course, that if they did not justify themselves to him then he would call for a boycott. If that’s what he did, then one can say that, however sweet the rhetoric, he threatened them. In judging how likely it is that Brian Leiter attempted to threaten the editors of Synthese, please observe that he is now quite overtly threatening me!
Darrell Rowbottom at It’s Only A Theory has a great idea: A boycott seems like an overreaction. (I don’t agree with the premiss that leverage is required at this stage.) A petition would be a gentler and more civil means of proceeding, in the first instance. This would show the EiC the strength of feeling in the community. You would get bigger numbers with a petition, and each petitioner may decide to boycott if they prefer. Also, the petition could have an academic tone that might work.
Maybe. If things change, I may set one up. However, I am acting as gatekeeper for now, and there is some serious support for the boycott.
Fremder Mensch: I have to be honest, you seem to be a baby, of the kind that is not uncommon in academia. I appreciate your acknowledgment of some of your interests in this matter, but I have not threatened you: I said it was shameful for you to hide behind anonymity while pontificating. You said it was shameful of me to have posted what I posted on my blog. There’s no threats on either side here. As to my correpondence with the Synthese editors, which has been extremely courteous throughout, I simply advised them that I was going to post the Branch and Fetzer letter, and that based on its contents, I intended to call for a boycott, unless they had either an explanation or an apology. If you believe that is a threat, far be it from me to police your use of the language. But one might have thought that a “threat” was only morally objectionable (i.e., was only a “threat”) when either the actions demanded, or the consequences for failure to perform them, were themselves unethical or morally problematic–which obviously wasn’t the case here. I realize philosophers of biology don’t do moral philosophy, but I think these distinctions are straightforward and I am surprised you don’t appreciate them. And, yes, I do know who you are, but I do not intend to disclose that here or anywhere else. But context is often helpful.
Dear Brian: I have enjoyed your blog very much. Often in bored moments I have clicked on my bookmark to it to see the latest news about the philosophy business or to see what dust you are kicking up. I think you perform a valuable service for the profession, although the Leiter Report does suffer from some basic flaws to which you seem to be blind. On matters of politics and religion, you and I are quite in sync. But you are a mean, vindictive bully. And, what is more appalling to me, there are many sycophants who will cheer you on. That is why I attempted anonymity. Everyone reading this blog can observe for themselves your bullying in your manner of addressing me and in the fact that you have gone snooping around trying to find out the identity of an anonymous poster who has criticized your actions. (Professor Wilkins, did you facilitate that?) First you thought I was a member of the editorial board of Synthese. Wrong. Now you think that I am a philosopher of biology. Also wrong. I think I know who you think I am; I write now to protect that person. To say that you will not reveal my identity and then toss out wrong hints is certainly shameful.
As I said, you’re being a bit of a baby about this: “mean, vindictive bully.” This isn’t a playground, and you haven’t been harmed by anything that has happened here. Read what you wrote about me, above. Did you think I was supposed to react with gratitude for those comments? They were insulting and unfair. I wondered why you would make such comments? I think I now know. But nothing has happened to you, or will happen to you. So, really, grow up.
I think Fremder Mensch has his finger on the larger story here, and I too commend Professor Wilkins for allowing the discussion to take this turn. I am not convinced that all of the relevant facts in this case are known and, in all honestly, I do not think the problem constitutes a threat to the profession. Rather, this looks to me like Leiter is exploiting an unfortunate disagreement to signal to the wider community the price people will pay for not meeting his demands. One point to consider is that the editors have not given their side, but it is unreasonable to demand they do this to a third party, never mind on that third-party’s blog. Disclaimer: I have no stake in Synthese, except that I have published there and I will continue to do so. It is one of the better run journals we have, and my reason for posting is that I find the attempt to tear it and its editors down in this fashion unseemly.
I’m sorry to see this discussion is now going off into cloud-cuckoo land. I posted the Branch and Fetzer letter. Mohan Matthen gave a pretty good summary of the issues, above, which I also re-posted on my blog. There is a prima facie case of wrong-doing. The Synthese editors can reply to whom and wherever they want. As a courtesy, I offered to post a reply on my blog, where I had posted the Branch and Fetzer letter. Everyone would prefer not to boycott what has been a fine journal. But at least some philosophers (though not the last brave anon) believe, as I do, that there was editorial misconduct here.
Okay, this is now getting to the limit of the comments policy (see above, stage left), and so I think it’s time to close the comments here. Everyone has said their piece, and we are now just rehearsing the same old same old. Let the Reader decide for hisherself.