Daniel Morgan has posted several items at his blog attempting to figure out the real life identity of "Mike Gene", a pseudonymous ID advocate who blogs at Telic Thoughts. Mike Gene has been a staple in the evolution/ID debate for many years. He's not really a Discovery Institute-type of ID advocate, he's more of an "ID evolutionist" than an "ID creationist", or at least that is my reading of him which is admittedly not too thorough (unlike many of my Panda's Thumb colleagues, I never took part in the discussion boards at ARN where Mike Gene has been a major figure for a long time debating these issues). Many people over the years have tried to discern his real identity and none have succeeded.
My message to Daniel Morgan is this: please stop. Actions have consequences, both positive and negative, and deciding on a course of action usually means weighing those consequences against one another. In this case, what could possibly be achieved that is positive for our side? You might succeed in figuring out who he is, and because he is apparently a junior faculty member at a university and does not have tenure, it may well cause some trouble for him. But that will not defeat his arguments, nor will it do anything to stop the political maneuvering of ID proponents or to resolve the disputes over this issue.
On the other hand, you can do a lot of damage here. You can do a lot of damage because you may well succeed in creating a martyr. The ID crowd has a lot of what I consider to be fake martyrs, Richard Sternberg most recently. They have a real tendency to whine about the "Darwinian priesthood" seeking to "destroy" anyone who advocates intelligent design and most of the time they have to exaggerate and distort in order to make those complaints sound more credible than they are. But you may succeed in creating a real martyr, one with a genuine and non-exaggerated case to make for being victimized by people seeking to enforce an orthodoxy of opinion at universities, where academic freedom should be nurtured and protected.
We have seen a couple of recent examples of university faculty speaking out against the views of ID advocates in their midst, at Iowa State (where a petition was circulated and signed by more than 150 faculty members taking the position that ID is not good science) and at Lehigh (where Michael Behe's fellow faculty members in the biochemistry department made a very public statement that they do not support his views on ID). All of that is fine and entirely within the bounds of academic discourse. Let them stake out their position and argue with one another to their heart's content. That did not, of course, stop many ID advocates from claiming that those actions were a threat to academic freedom, as is their wont to do. In my view, those claims are exaggerated. But if you succeed in outing this person and, as a result, damage his career, you will only prove them right. You will hand them a real example of what they have so often had to resort to exaggeration to create, and we will all be worse off for it.
I say this to you as someone who, many years ago, participated in the outing of a prominent creationist, John Woodmorappe (that is his pseudonym, not his real name). It's something I regret now, though I think the circumstances made it more justified than your actions here (Woodmorappe was, while writing under his fake name, citing articles written under his real name that appeared to contradict his creationist views). Quite frankly, it was mostly a matter of ego for me then, and the desire to stick it to someone I viewed as the enemy. But I'm older now, hopefully wiser and certainly less interested in having my ego stroked by preening before my fellow soldiers in this rhetorical battle. We cannot allow the often heated nature of this debate blind us to the potential negative results of our actions or to the ethical requirements that should always guide our actions.
I also say this to you as someone who, frankly, doesn't like MikeGene very much, particularly in light of his recent posts questioning the integrity, without justification in my view, of my friend Wesley Elsberry. But even having been the target of that nasty rhetoric from Mike, Wesley still agrees with me that unless there is evidence that he has done real harm to someone (like used his veil of anonymity to damage someone else's career), it's a bad idea to engage in this kind of outing. There is no such evidence that I know of. He has been critical of many people, of course, but criticism should be met with criticism, not with actions that could do real harm not only to him but to us as well. Wesley also points out another obvious problem - what if you're wrong? It would be even worse if your actions damaged the career of someone who isn't even involved in this and has no idea what's going on.
If Mike Gene's views are wrong, then we should point out why they are wrong. If he has been dishonest or sloppy in his handling of the evidence, then we should document those facts. What we should not do is engage in the kind of underhanded tactics that we have so often been falsely accused of. People often lament the fact that someone they know has become what they most despised; I suggest that if you continue on this path, we may all lament the fact that we have become what many others already erroneously think we are.
P.S. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are some folks on "my side" of this debate who will react to this the same way they reacted to my urging caution on the Mirecki affair - by treating me as a weak-kneed milquetoast without the stomach for the kind of relentless bashing that the ID advocates so richly deserve. I frankly couldn't care less. I already lost all respect for those who will take such a position and their scorn at this point will only reinforce my view of them. I have often attacked ID advocates in very harsh terms, but only, at least in my view, when it was well deserved. When they have lied, I have called them liars and documented the evidence to back up the charge. When they have behaved hypocritically, I have done the same.
I firmly believe that the William Demsbkis and John Wests of this world are charlatans of the first order and that their agenda is doing grave damage already to science education in this country. But that does not mean that every person who accepts any aspect of ID is one as well. And there is a line over which we should never cross. If you want to do some sleuthing that shows that Dembski wrote anonymous reviews of books that pimped his own work, I'll cheer you on (and yes, he did that and it was highly unethical and showed what a buffoon he really is). But this is over the line and, once again, I urge Mr. Morgan to think about what I've said and stop this inquisition. The more you succeed in damaging him, the more you will also damage us.
Update: Mr. Morgan has removed the posts that speculated on the identity of MikeGene. He is to be commended for doing so and I hope we can put the whole situation behind us. I also hope others in the future refrain from this sort of thing.
- Log in to post comments
There are no such posts. Please remove this thread.
Daniel Morgan wrote:
There were many such posts as of late last night when I wrote this. I'm glad that you removed them, but I'm going to leave this up as a caution to others who might attempt the same thing and because I think it is important to get on the record our opposition to such practices. I will, however, make a note that you removed the posts and thank you for doing so. It was the right thing to do.
Thanks for the "lesson", but if your interest is what you say, need you leave the thread's references to me, specifically? The general points can be made without making mention of the specifics of this case.
Irrespective of that...I wanted to reveal an identity for the purpose of gaining notoriety in the blogosphere. Honestly. I did not want/intend any harm to this person. I even made positive comments about the work this person I referenced had done. In retrospect, I see the point that it looks like I'm "attacking" this person, solely by revealing their identity. I will, however, make a note that I don't feel the need to "attack" people considering I feel no threat or anger myself regarding ID. I have engaged in meaningful debate, and never once got angry, with this person, and with many others on many other public forums. I enjoy debate, and it does not induce an insecurity in me that would lead to some sort of "lashback" mechanism. As you pointed out, MikeGene is one of the more moderate ID advocates out there. Further, MikeGene has made specific reference to not wanting ID taught in schools, which caught Dembski's attention some time ago and irritated him.
Whether this thread stays up or not, I may repost the information I have continued to collect at some point in the future. I may not, and if I do, I will wait until this person attains tenure. I guess I feel my hard work in digging through ARN forums and whois searches and connecting dots ought to be paid off with some attention. Forgive me for the egoism.
As I said in one of the posts (now gone), I did email MikeGene at the "pseudonymous email" and at the person's work email and ask for a reply to indicate if they wanted me to take down the posts. I indicated to them I would immediately remove them, even if the reply came via the anonymous email (thus not confirming my hypothesis).
I may be new to the blogosphere, young, and impetuous, but I am not evil. In closing, and this is my last comment on the issue, note that MikeGene never denied I had the correct name.
I wanted to reveal an identity for the purpose of gaining notoriety in the blogosphere.
Why would you aspire for notoriety? Do you even know what that word means? Here are two definitions I found online:
1. The quality or condition of being notorious; ill fame.
2. The state of being known for some unfavorable act or quality.
Neither sound like something I'd like to have. Many people aspire to be famous, but only a few demented people want to become notorious. Of course, a poor reputation could be determined by who is passing judgement, in which case notoriety is subjective (and further contingent on whether the judger considers you famous). If you want to be notorious amongst creationist (I'd argue PZ Myers has achieved such), then more power to you. But do you really want sweeping notoriety?
I suppose I mean that bad attention is better than no attention at all when it comes to getting traffic on the blogosphere. That is all I meant.
My reputation in "real life" is quite disconnected from that on the internet. I hope it stays that way, as I sincerely doubt I shall ever meet anyone I've ever conversed with or debated with.
sdanielmorgan at January 7, 2006 02:15 PM
Your comment might be interesting, but you should recognize that a comment should initially present a theme, very quickly. Your's have not. The poster (in this case, Ed) is in a different situation.
I will read some lengthy posts from Ed, but I won't read many lengthy comment unless there is an "executive summary" at the beginning that sports my interest. Why Ed and not you? Because Ed has a track record that suggests that he has something interesting to say. Simple.
Daniel Morgan wrote:
But the fact is that you did attempt to out him and that is what prompted me to write what I did. I'm not inclined to change it because it divorces the post from its proper context and because it would amount to rewriting history.
I believe you. I'm not trying to make you out to be a bad guy here. In fact, I really do commend you for reconsidering and taking down the posts. But frankly, wanting to attain notoriety may be the worst possible motivation for attempting what you did (as it was for me several years ago when I did the same thing to someone else for similar reasons). I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended. My motivation was not to make you look bad, it was to get you to reconsider the course you had set upon and change it for the good of all of us. That you did so and changed course is very much to your credit.
You may be, as you say, young and impetuous, but the fact that after a chance to reflect you changed your mind clearly speaks to your ability to mature and grow and learn from mistakes (and I really do not mean that to sound in any way condescending or patronizing). Believe me, I've had to learn from more than my fair share of such mistakes and I've eaten enough crow to learn how to cook it well.
You're clearly passionate about this issue and those of us who have been involved in it for a long time welcome that energy and enthusiasm. I believe I was one of the first bloggers to link to your page and praise you for a thorough review of the Sternberg situation. You bring much to the table and I'm glad to have you seated here. And you're not the first person to try and figure out who MikeGene is, believe me. That speculation has been something of a cottage industry for a long time (and honestly, I think you're wrong about who you think he is, as do at least a couple of other people who have interacted with MikeGene for a long time and are in a better position to speculate than either you or I, but that is neither here nor there). It was never my intent to make you out to be evil but rather, as you put it, young and impetuous - as I have often been myself. So again, I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended. And I hope we can all let this go by the wayside now and get on to more productive matters.
Daniel, I've not heard of you or your blog before, but I'm heading over there after posting this, because I am impressed with how you've taken this. One of the things I'm very thankful for is that the Google usenet archive did not manage to find some of the stupid flame wars that I participated in back when the earth's crust was cooling.
One of my alt.folkloe.urban colleagues said once, "everybody farts in public once in a while; apologize and move on." You've done so admirably.
As one who has had many interactions with MG, I see no reason to protect the queen of hypocrits from being outed. Gene herself has participated in such endeavors on ARN, and it seems to me turn-about's fair in this situation.
I don't get the "martyr" factor either, unless Ed thinks what they say is true. That the "orthodoxy" would punish her for her views. I don't.
wildlifer wrote:
I am not aware of any situation in which MG has done this. Can you provide evidence of this?
I know for a fact that there are folks on "my side" (and by that I only mean those who advocate for evolution and against ID/creationism) who would make an effort to prevent a junior academic from getting tenure if they were known to be an ID advocate, regardless of any other factor. Do I think they represent the "Darwinian orthodoxy"? Absolutely not. But they do exist and I have no doubt they would agitate by writing letters to MG's bosses if they had proof of who he was, in an attempt to smear him to them. I also don't really think it matters whether they would succeed or not. The fact that they would make the effort is sufficently dangerous and ill-advised that I think it's important to distance ourselves from such actions and avoid feeding into them.
Let me add one thing to that last comment. There is one really key factor here, which is that there is nothing positive to be gained to offset the risk of damaging someone's career or even of risking the perception of having attempted to do so. What could possibly be gained other than the kind of notoriety that Daniel says he was initially motivated by? What good would it do anyone other than to indulge their desire to play "gotcha" with the guy? I see no benefit whatsoever. So given that fact, why is it worth even feeding into negative perceptions, even if those perceptions are invalid?
Ed, while I disagree with you about Paul Mirecki. I happen to take the stance that I believe him. I'm not aware of issues that contradict his story that the thugs mentioned the controversy in Kansas when they took some swings at him.
On this issue - this outing issue, I oppose it. I see no reason to go after someone's career. I'd encourage ID advocates to come out of the closet.
It's also taking the eye off the ball. The point is to win the debate over the hearts and minds of people - not going after one's opponents personally.
I do think if Mike Gene defames someone - then what the person should do is write domains by proxy - and complain - and just because you are anonymous, doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for your statements.
Well, most of it occured prior to my ARN membership, although it reared its head a few times later. As best as I can recall it involved some of the II (Swamp) regulars.
I see what you're saying. But again, due to my experiences w/Gene at ARN and Teleoidiocy blog, IMHO it couldn't happen to a more deserving person, but I'll defer to you.
I very much regret that Daniel was pressured to remove this information. I have no sympathy for or patience with people who post anonymously on the net. It strikes me as the height of moral cowardice. If you can't stand by your words, you don't deserve to be listened to.
Lest anyone think I don't walk the walk, I was an outspoken conservative on a very liberal campus before I got tenure. A couple of leftist profs in my department went gunning for me in the tenure meeting, but the large majority of my colleagues decided my politics were irrelevant to my science (or maybe some of them even liked my politics :-)), and decided based on my science.
There is however an "aka" linked to the useridentity 'MikeGene' in another thread on Daniel's blog. He might want to edit that one too.
Although I suspect that it might be difficult, even with careful editing, to unring the bell.
I very much regret that Daniel was pressured to remove this information. I have no sympathy for or patience with people who post anonymously on the net. It strikes me as the height of moral cowardice. If you can't stand by your words, you don't deserve to be listened to.
I know of two people specificly who have gone to being anon because they have been the victims of violence because of what they had to talk about. I also know that in some schools one can be looked over for tenure because of espoused beliefs. At least I know it happens in teh work place in general and I am certain acedemia is no different. I for one post under a pseudonym on occasion out of respect for people who are family and would liekly prefer not to be linked to my views that way as I am a very outspoken liberal with an ocassional tendency towards ranting, though I am betting better about it as time passes and I mature. In any case I believe it is all around best to let people post as they will and respect their privacy unless through their pseudonym they are perpetuating fraud.
I do generaly admit when I am using a pseudonym as most people I would imagine do. I am using one right now, Treban is teh name of a charecter in a short story I wrote 15 years ago in high school. It does not change the validity of what I have to say nor do I fear to stand behind what I say. When I first started posting online I used this name all the time because I was seking a job. I subsaquently quit when I realized that I would have issues working for someone who would google me and dislike me for my words enough not to employ me. When I did it it did't mean I was afraid of standing by my opinions it was for more practical reasons.
I would have a sincere distaste for a person who would choose not to respect someones wishes to remain anonomous. If you dislike it that intently then you should ignore those who choose to post that way, outing them, unless they are defrauding people, is juvenile and potentialy dangerous. One of the persons I know who was beaten is a gay man who was found out by someone in his community (how they found him on a gay dating site is rather suspicious) and was jumped and beaten nearly to death by 3 men. I doubt that Mike would be likely to get beaten but depending on the school he could well put his/her position in jeopardy, just because you were lucky enough to get tenure doesn't mean everyone would be.
So, you work somewhere where they'll deny you tenure because of your espoused (and presumably irrelevant) beliefs: why do you want to work somewhere under what are essentially false pretenses? It's only a job. If you're any good, you'll find one elsewhere, where they evaluate you on your merits. And meanwhile, you're living a lie.
As for violence: no one gets beaten up because of what they wrote on the net. People get beaten up because there are violent jerks out there who need to be locked up. But if you're not willing to put it on the line for what you want to say, maybe what you want to say just isn't that worthwhile.
I've scarcely ever read anything by Mike Gene; the few times I've checked out Telic Thoughts it's struck me as utterly vapid. I've figured out a few identities on the net myself, and not outed them (except to a few chosen friends, of course). But since I've never agreed to respect anyone's anonymity, I feel under absolutely no obligation to do so; and nor should anyone else feel so obligated.
So, you work somewhere where they'll deny you tenure because of your espoused (and presumably irrelevant) beliefs: why do you want to work somewhere under what are essentially false pretenses? It's only a job. If you're any good, you'll find one elsewhere, where they evaluate you on your merits. And meanwhile, you're living a lie.
As for violence: no one gets beaten up because of what they wrote on the net. People get beaten up because there are violent jerks out there who need to be locked up. But if you're not willing to put it on the line for what you want to say, maybe what you want to say just isn't that worthwhile.
I've scarcely ever read anything by Mike Gene; the few times I've checked out Telic Thoughts it's struck me as utterly vapid. I've figured out a few identities on the net myself, and not outed them (except to a few chosen friends, of course). But since I've never agreed to respect anyone's anonymity, I feel under absolutely no obligation to do so; and nor should anyone else feel so obligated.
Another vote against "outing." His message should be irrelevent to his identity. We don't want to approach a slippery slope that can lead to ad hominem attacks in any event. Indeed it is widely accepted that internet forums and blogs can be signed by a pen name.
Of course one want to post without one's real name without giving out one's actual identity then there should be two understandings: 1) You lose your resume. If we don't know who you are then you must rely only what you can show. 2) We expect that you will not use "sock puppets": Don't use what one identity says for another identity and don't use multiply identitities to avoid "kill files" and having to comply with formal forum rules and/or normal descency/ethics. One good rule of thumb would be: one forum, one identity.
Outing should be done only for gross violations of the above two conditions. Someone doing what Woodmorappe did is certainly fair game. And someone claiming to be a Ph.D. who is the janitor is also fair game.
Ha! Clearly a red herring. Wesley has slipped up and revealed himself to be the real Mike Gene.
I presume everyone realises I'm joking.
BTW, I toss in an occasional British spelling just to throw people off of my secret true identity.
What the hell is this? I thought it was the preserve of the religious conservatives implement big brother tactics?
Personally, I prefer people to write under their own names. However, if someone does not wish to do so then it is well within their rights. Outing people who would rather remain anonymous is plain childish and has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Andrew
As an aside, while posting at ARN, I also had a link to my personal website which included a link to my resume. I wasn't hiding anything.
So, you work somewhere where they'll deny you tenure because of your espoused (and presumably irrelevant) beliefs: why do you want to work somewhere under what are essentially false pretenses? It's only a job. If you're any good, you'll find one elsewhere, where they evaluate you on your merits. And meanwhile, you're living a lie.
You misunderstood me. I was trying to find work, in the construction business, in a new town and was concerned someone might google me and discover I am a flaming liberal. Note I was moving to a new city nearly 3,000 miles away from where anyone knows what I can do. Also note that I mentioned I stopped posting anon except in special cases because I realized I wouldn't do well working for folks who wouldn't hire me because of my views. In fact I am self employed, primarily get work from the internet and get googled regularly - in many cases it helps me get work.
As for violence: no one gets beaten up because of what they wrote on the net. People get beaten up because there are violent jerks out there who need to be locked up. But if you're not willing to put it on the line for what you want to say, maybe what you want to say just isn't that worthwhile.
The fact is that when some simian freak reads something that makes him decide to kick the ass of the person who said, the person who said it is getting their ass kicked because they posted under their real name online. And my gay friend didn't "get his ass kicked" he spent 7 weeks in the hospital and came close to having a lowered mental capacity. Does that mean he should post under his real name to be taken seriously? Why? In what way does that change the validity of what he has to say? I am sure if you locked up every moron out there who engages in this kind of violent activity, you could convince many folks who post anon to use their real name, until then I am not going to feel their opinions are any less valid. It's unfotunate you do because some of them are quite bright.
I know it's only peripherally related to "outing" in this context, but I know several women who've been stalked in meatspace by people who figured out their identities from online clues -- and this has been going on since the days when 1200-baud dialup was cutting-edge technology.
I post as "Aegeri" simply because when I first registered to typekey I just happened to use it rather than my real name. I've not bothered to actually change it, but I'm fairly common among many internet forums (like II) so it wouldn't be hard to make the connection between my pseudonym to who I actually am.
Personally, while I find the telic thoughts crowd full of the same vapidity and incredulous arguments that I've heard from most ID advocates, I do respect them because at least they don't make an 'echo chamber' such as Dembski or other ID proponents. At least they allow for a proper discussion on their blog and haven't gone on the usual pro-ID dribbling rants about Judge Jones (for example).
Outing MikeGenes identity is an invasion of privacy and should absolutely not be done. I use my real name on the internet because I choose to, if MikeGene wants to use a pseudonym then that is their choice and it should be respected. Running around trying to ferret out people for what they think is similar to the Spanish Inquisitions search for anyone they deemed a heretic. It serves utterly no purpose except as an attack for personal satisfaction where nobody wins.
J'O Donnell
http://immnoblogging.blogspot.com
Actually I just noticed I have bothered to change it. Whatever. :P