Glatz criticisms.cwk (WP) - Calodema

Calodema, 157: 1-11 (2011)T.J. Hawkeswood- Richard Glatzbut I don't have to agree or disagree.Australia's biggest crackpot (and as Maxwell Smart would say, "And loving it!"), Dr Trevor J. Hawkeswood, Editor inChief, Calodema, www.calodema.com, Google's highest rating biological website.7. 1st letter from C.J. Parker on the Medlar Comfits website (21 (March 2010)Chris J Parker said...Anna, all I can say is what a load of useless elitist drivel this blog is. I’ll give you one thing though – at least you,Hawkeswood, and Wells use their full names which can’t be said for cowards like “R” and “marek”. I really don’t get it.If Hawkeswood is such a dud with a dodgy PhD and journal then why do you even worry about the man? How can thisone little man cause you highly educated geniuses so much stress? Wouldn’t you all be better off making sure yourroses are properly pruned?Look, I’m just a lowly lay person with an interest in science and to me you, marek, “R” and the like all look like abunch of stuck up dickheads.What harm can Hawkeswood’s web site and journal possibly do to you - being so smart and all - and your science?What’s wrong with a different way of doing things? What’s wrong with working “outside the square” to use a cliché?From what I can see TJH came across a road block and found a way around it. It sounds like exactly what one does inbusiness. You really have a hide. Everything you do is probably tax payer funded and as far as I am aware TJH’s workis all from private funds. At least his website is interesting and different. I wonder if he has a Blogger page?8. 3rd Email from Richard Glatz at Medlar Comfits website (21 March 2010)Anonymous said...From RAnna,I applaud your post of the 20th [March 2010] for calling it like it is and actually taking time to try and understand theideas that were being argued, and also to see through the smoke-screens being put up along the way.The latest intervention [CJ Parker] is obviously from someone who doesn’t seem to care about the scientific processor understand it……they have obviously not read the blogs or just simply failed to grasp all the main points and justdon’t like that there has been any criticism of TJ. If someone’s going to produce a rant so late in the piece, the leastthey can do is make it relevant to what’s happened previously! (And why do they keep bringing up taxpayerfunds?????....which aren’t involved and are totally irrelevant).Consider this commentary: “What’s wrong with a different way of doing things? What’s wrong with working “outsidethe square” to use a cliché? From what I can see TJH came across a road-block and found a way around it. It sounds likeexactly what one does in business.”It’s exactly what one DOESN’T do in science. In terms of adhering to scientific process, there’s a lot wrong with it. Theethos of science is nothing like business. The whole argument has been about that very issue of “what’s wrong withit?” and I have raised these questions over and over again.“At least his website is interesting and different”…. SO WHAT….what’s that got to do with the shortcomings raisedpreviously.In the context of the whole discussion Chris is actually asking “What’s wrong with not having peer-review inscientific journals”, “What’s wrong with misrepresenting qualifications and journal processes” “What’s wrong withdescribing species wrongly” etc etc. The brief answer is A LOT (maybe not in business but in science). There isn’tmuch point revisiting the long answer (see above). So…he’s more worried about people putting their names down(complete with middle initial!) than these issues.I’d like to ask “what’s wrong with exposing a shonky approach?”.You (Anna) have obviously considered these issues quite deeply (much more than some others here) and I think thereshould be more of it. As I have heard Richard Dawkins say “How do we know what we know?”….it’s not just becausesomeone said it’s so.Page 7