I just did a search at both the blog search engine and Technorati, and as far as I can tell, the DI blog is still the only one that even mentions that there has been a denial of the accusations made by Richard von Sternberg against Jonathan Coddington and the Smithsonian. Bloggers like Joe Carter, Roger Schlafly, Derek Gilbert and many others jumped all over the Klinghoffer op-ed piece, presumed it must be true, and declared it to be proof of a "Darwinian inquisition". Yet not one of them has even mentioned that Coddington has responded to those accusations, denied them completely, and pointed out that Sternberg continues to be a Research Associate at the NMNH with precisely the same access and position he has always held. I believe this is what psychologists call "confirmation bias". Everything that does not confirm what one already believes to be true is simply filtered out and pretended not to exist.
- Log in to post comments
Ed,
I was beginning to feel a bit embarrassed that I had missed the Coddington rebuttal. I searched Google to see if the WSJ had printed a retraction or if new evidence was presented that showed the story to be in error. But then I realized that the only place the response was found was in a comment at Panda's Thumb.
Now I realize that PT is considered by many to be an invaluable source of information. But I think we can be forgiven for not reporting on every new piece of information that appears in that blog's comment section.
According to the WSJ article, Mr. Coddington was afforded the opportunity to respond to the charges but chose not to do so. But now that he has posted a blog comment saying that the claims are not true, we are supposed to assume that he is the one that is telling the truth? If the U.S. Office of Special Counsel finds that the complaint against Coddinton has no merit, then I will certainly report that on my blog. But in the meantime I think I can my "selection bias" can be forgiven considering the attitude toward ID.
I was beginning to feel a bit embarrassed that I had missed the Coddington rebuttal. I searched Google to see if the WSJ had printed a retraction or if new evidence was presented that showed the story to be in error. But then I realized that the only place the response was found was in a comment at Panda's Thumb.
That is false. It also appeared at the ARN webpage. And the Smithsonian did reply and deny the charges in a letter to the Wall Street Journal. And it was reported on the DI blog as well, the only pro-ID page to have reported it.
According to the WSJ article, Mr. Coddington was afforded the opportunity to respond to the charges but chose not to do so. But now that he has posted a blog comment saying that the claims are not true, we are supposed to assume that he is the one that is telling the truth? If the U.S. Office of Special Counsel finds that the complaint against Coddinton has no merit, then I will certainly report that on my blog. But in the meantime I think I can my "selection bias" can be forgiven considering the attitude toward ID.
Thank you for proving true my assertion that there is a clear confirmation bias going on here. The mere accusation of wrongdoing, made in an op-ed piece that is entirely second hand, with many of the reports of alleged conversations being third and fourth hand, is enough for you to declare the accusations true and that the "Church of Darwin" had "excommunicated a heretic", yet you won't even mention that those accusations have been denied and that Sternberg still has exactly the same position and access that he had before. The accusations, in your mind, are true unless proven false; the denial of the accusation is false until proven true. But in both cases, you have exactly the same amount of evidence to go on. Hence, my conclusion of confirmation bias is dead on accurate.
The one thing that is undeniable is that Sternberg's position at the Smithsonian has not changed a bit. He was asked to change offices, but Coddington says that was done before the whole PBSW incident took place and that it involved moving about 20 other people. He still has the exact same access he always had. So where exactly is the discrimination, in the accusation that a few other people, according to second hand sources, might have treated him bruskly in the hallway?
The fact is that you and your fellow bloggers have jumped to conclusions based solely on hearsay, and you refuse to even mention that there is another side to the story and that the other side of the story has precisely the same evidence in its favor that your side does. The mere accusation is enough to form a conclusion as long as that accusation conforms with what you already believed to be true. The mere denial of those accusations isn't worth mentioning because, obviously, it doesn't conform with what you believed to be true. That is the very definition of confirmation bias, isn't it?
That is the very definition of confirmation bias, isn't it?
True, but, in fairness, Mr. Carter's blog does say that he holds an "evangelical worldview." E.g., his "selection bias" can be forgiven.
True, but, in fairness, Mr. Carter's blog does say that he holds an "evangelical worldview." E.g., his "selection bias" can be forgiven.
I don't think an "evangelical worldview" requires one to credulously fall for any claim that coincides with what one wishes to be true, especially when that claim is based solely on second hand statements. Nor does it require that one trumpet such claims as true without bothering to mention that the accused has flatly denied the accusations and offered good reasons to think they aren't true. It's hardly fair and balanced.
An "evangelical worldview" is not a license to lie.
An "evangelical worldview" is not a license to lie.
It's not? Then what good is it?