The Non-Response of the Synthese Editors

COMMENTS NOW OPEN, SINCE I HAVE TIME TO MODERATE

Philosopher of science Eric Schliesser (Ghent) also offered to post a response by the Synthese editors to the earlier item here, and they have now sent him one (on which he and Mark Lance usefully comment).  I think it fair to say that the response of the Editors-in-Chief is wholly non-responsive to the issues raised by the Guest Editors.  Here is the 'response' in full:

In response to the controversy concerning a decision by the editors of Synthese involving a recent special issue on "Evolution and its Rivals":

We are committed to the view that Synthese, in addition to being a venue for pure philosophy, also be a forum for debate on issues which extend into the public sphere. In particular, we believe that philosophical debate concerning the role of religion in science and public policy is important. This is why we accepted the proposal to pursue this special issue.

We allow guest editors sufficient freedom to craft intellectually significant special issues. At the same time, as editors of Synthese we must ensure the highest standards of politeness and fairness.  This is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, especially with respect to highly-charged matters.

We judged that several articles included in the special issue contained language that is unacceptable: neutral readers of the issue will find no difficulty in identifying such passages. We placed no restriction whatsoever on content. After internal resolution failed, we added a preface as a way of acknowledging our ultimate responsibility, while expressing our regret for the breach of our standards.

While we grant anyone's right to judgment calls different from ours, the simple fact remains that it was our task as editors to make them in this case. Of course, there are lessons to be learnt from what happened regarding our internal procedures, and Synthese will do that.

Finally, we would emphasize once more that maintaining standards of courtesy in academic writing is not a matter of taking sides. It is beneficial to all parties interested in the pursuit of truth. The special issue is out there now, and we trust that colleagues interested in its theme will now proceed to discuss the actual contents.

Just to recap, the open letter from the Guest Editors, Glenn Branch and James Fetzer, alleged that:

1.  The disclaimer, because it did not name the purportedly "offending" papers, cast aspersions on all the contributors and the Guest Editors. 

2.  The Editors-in-Chief had, on three occasions, promised the Guest Editors no disclaimer would be inserted; the Editors-in-Chief broke that promise and inserted the disclaimer behind the backs of the Guest Editors.

3.  One contributor, Barbara Forrest, was asked to revise her paper (critical of ID apologist Francis Beckwith) after publication on-line because of complaints, including (nonsensical) allegations of "libel," that were directed at the Editors-in-Chief by supporters of Beckwith and Intelligent Design.  The Editors-in-Chief did not even inform the Guest Editors that they were making this unusual demand for post-publication revision.

4.  The contributors were never advised by the Editors-in-Chief of a possible disclaimer, and several have stated that they would have withdrawn their paper had they been forewarned, rather than have the integrity of their work impugned unfairly.

I know that some philosophers were waiting for a response from the editors before deciding whether to boycott Synthese.  In light of the non-response, I hope more philosophers will now join the boycott:  please contact philosopher John Wilkins at the University of Sydney: john-at-wilkins-dot-id-dot-au.  By joining the boycott, you signal that you think the behavior of the Editors-in-Chief was professionally unacceptable.

It does seem to me the non-response of the Editors-in-Chief is particularly offensive in failing to name the offending articles, and thus, once again, casting aspersions on all the contibutors.

It really is disappointing that the editors did not follow Mohan Matthen's sage advice, noted earlier:

Special Issue [of Synthese] 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. 

As an aside, I should add that my own personal opinion is that there is one paper in the volume that is both philosophically shallow and whose rhetoric is not supported by the quality of the argument, namely, Robert Pennock's (I alluded to this long ago).  But Mr. Branch reports that no objection was ever raised about Pennock's paper by the Editors-in-Chief, only about the paper that targets longtime ID apologist Francis Beckwith; that, of course, supports the inference that the Editors-in-Chief caved into pressure from Intelligent Design proponents and friends of Beckwith, as originally alleged.

Thoughts from readers?  Signed comments only:  that means FULL NAME in the signature line and valid e-mail address.  Please submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.  Thanks.

Comments

[Darrell Rowbottom]

Why are you not calling for the _guest editors_ to apologise to the authors who did meet editorial standards, for publishing their work alongside the pieces by Pennock and Forrest? (Didn't the guest editors, along with Pennock and Forrest, play into the pro-ID crowd's hands?) Why the focus on the EiC?

In short, it's odd for the guest editors to complain about being wronged when they clearly didn't, in my view, do their job properly. Their negligence put the EiC in a difficult position. (I have only read Forrest's and Pennock's papers. Neither should have been published as it stands, in my view. Were these papers sent out for blind review? Neither author thanks blind reviewers in their acknowledgements.)

Nevertheless, I do wish the EiC would apologise for not targeting the disclaimer more accurately. But I certainly won't be participating in any boycott.

BL COMMENT: Your first question is so manifestly absurd, I'm not sure what to say about that. As I indicated, there is only one article in the volume that seems to me questionable on the philosophical merits, and that is Pennock's (not Forrest's). The complaints of the Guest Editors were that (1) the EICs misled them, (2) insulted them and all the contributors for unspecified reasons, and (3) appear to have done so because of pressure from the ID crowd.

[John Pieret]

You may want to note that the Discoveryless Institute is already trying to take advantage of this by claiming that the NCSE is trying to "blacklist" Synthese and its editors, ala "Expelled":

www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/ncse_tries_to_blacklist_synthe046061.html

[Ingo Brigandt]

Response to Darrell Rowbottom: The reason why the guest editors should not apologize to the authors is that none of the special issue authors appear to have any objection to what the guest editors have done (nor should anyone else have serious objections to having all the papers published). The issue is solely about the disclaimer publication and other actions of the editors in chief. Here you have the written words of two of the special issue authors on this matter: none of them object to the other papers or the guest editors.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/04/us-them-and-the-real-issue/
http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2011/04/21/the-synthese-editors-in-chief-strike-back/

[Darrell Rowbottom]

And your response is so manifestly dismissive, Brian, that there's little need for a rejoinder. (There is no need to repeat the complaints of the Guest Editors. I am quite capable of basic comprehension. I have a PhD and everything!)

For the record, for reasons I've explained elsewhere ('It's Only A Theory'), I think that Forrest's paper falls short on philosophical grounds and also contains biographical information concerning Beckwith that is inappropriate.

The motivation behind my questions was my belief that the EiC are being treated unfairly. The fact that no authors feel wronged by the guest editors - a good point, Ingo - does not mean that they should not (in so far as the EiC would not have needed to respond if there hadn't been some merit to the charges).

BL COMMENT: The biographical information is relevant to Forrest's argument, since the person she is arguing against is not primarily a philosopher, but a political and religious activist. I repeated the points raised by Branch and Fetzer because your comment seemed to reflect no awareness of them. Ingo's comment does explain why the initial question you posed was so absurd, but I guess we can retire that issue.

[Ingo Brigandt]

I have for the first time taken a look at Francis Beckwith's response to Barbara Forrest (which though not being part of the special issue, has been published online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9891-y ). The response has obviously been approved by the editors-in-chief of Synthese (and I did not spot any disclaimer). In it, Beckwith claims that the disclaimer affixed to the special issue was added in response to objections against Forrest's article criticizing Beckwith. To my mind, this exaberates the case against Synthese in two ways: (1) In addition to the previously known misconduct of of the editors-in-chief (based on the events described by the guest editors), it turns out that whereas the special issues authors were not notified that a disclaimer sweepingly denouncing their articles was to be added (and the guest editors were told by the editors-in-chief that the plans to add the disclaimer had been dropped), Beckwith was informed about the addition of the disclaimer. (Long before the guest editors broke the story, in his paper published online on March 5 Beckwith provides the page number of the disclaimer that appeared in the print version only). (2) Whereas editor-in-chief John Symons claims that that "editors in chief of Synthese in no way 'caved to the ID lobby'" (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/branch-and-fetzer-reply-to-the-eics-of-synthese.html ), the editor sanctioned publication by Beckwith asserts that the disclaimer was added in response to objections against Forrest's article. To be sure, Beckwith does not explicitly claim that the disclaimer was added because someone lobbied on his behalf against Forrest (though the latter is consistent with Beckwith's account and is exactly the version told by the guest editors). Moreover, Beckwith's account in Synthese does not fit the editors-in-chief's story that objections to more than one special issue paper prompted the disclaimer.

[James H. Fetzer]

Ingo has it right. The situation is actually rather simple. We edited the special issue. We submitted it to the journal. It was accepted it for publication. And it was published on-line before any controversy arose. SYNTHESE, of course, has the right to request any revisions it desired prior to its acceptance for publication. Once it had been accepted -- and published on-line! -- the situation reversed. They Editors-in-Chief had had their opportunity to review the contents and request revisions in style and content but none were sought at the appropriate time. They are tacitly criticizing themselves for their failure to exercise oversight, where, in my view, there have never been any good reasons for revisions

Just for the record–and to tie up some loose ends–I want to thank both Ingo and John on "Evolving Thoughts" for excellent observations about the use of selective quotation by Larry Laudan. I have been motivated to return to the special issue and to reread Pennock’s article, which I consider to be exemplary. He makes many excellent points about Laudan, where I am convinced that Laudan’s efforts to diminish the distinction between science and pseudo-science has proven to be a great boon to those who promote creationism, creation science, and ID. I suspect that this is the reason I recommended it be our opening article.

Within the framework of inference to the best explanation (IBE), for an hypothesis to qualify as “scientific”, it must satisfy conditions of (1) derivability, (2) lawlikeness, and (3) exclusion of irrelevant factors, which cannot be satisfied by classic creationist hypotheses is any of their formulations. That (CC1) God created the world and everything therein exactly as we find it today; or that (CC2) He created life in fixed and unchanging forms; or that (CC3) He created life in all its forums using the laws of evolution are unable to satisfy those three conditions and therefore cannot qualify as “scientific”.

Since “exactly as we find it today” is compatible with any arrangement of the geological, fossil, and DNA evidence, (CC1) does not imply one explanandum as opposed to another and is empirically untestable. That all life exists in fixed and unchanging forms is a testable claim, but (CC2) does not offer lawlike premises connecting God to that outcome. And if God created life in all its forms using the laws of evolution, as (CC3) implies, then the laws of evolution are enough to explain those forms of life and the appeal to God is irrelevant.

Since most defensible measure of evidential support for one hypothesis in comparison with another is the probability of the evidence when we assume that they are true (known as “likelihoods”) since creationist, creation science and ID hypotheses fail to satisfy the requirements for qualifying as potential explanans, they have measures of support equal to zero by this standard. Which means that (IBE) appears to provide the foundation for a more sophisticated criterion of demarcation, which means that Laudan did not get it right.

Indeed, even if the evolution of species, given the initial conditions on Earth, is highly improbable, that does not alter the consideration that an hypothesis with a low likelihood is still preferable to those with zero likelihoods, which produces the right result and appears to be fully justified based upon (IBE). I explain all this in RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), but if you want to find it, you will have to begin the book by reading the Appendix! My editor thought it was too heavy for the opening chapter, but it’s there, nonetheless. So the short answer is that Pennock is right and Laudan was wrong.

BL COMMENT: While I continue to agree with Professor Fetzer about the misconduct of the Synthese EICs in this matter, I do not share his opinion of the Pennock article. This is, of course, within the scope of reasonable editorial disagreement. But if I were the Guest Editor I would have bounced the Pennock piece altogether, since it's high-flying rhetoric is not supported by the quality of argument in my view. The more important point, however, is that the EICs never made an issue of the Pennock piece--perhaps because the ID crowd did not target it. Let me add that I'm happy to have a substantive discussion of the Pennock piece here, though I can not, due to an existing commitment, contribute to it just now.

[James H. Fetzer]

Darrell Rowbottom:

Just to clarify a few crucial points about the history of this fiasco, the guest editors edited the special issue, it was submitted to the journal, and one of the Editors-in-Chief accepted it for publication. Subsequently, after its contents had been published on-line, one of the contributors contacted Glenn Branch to explain that she was being subjected to pressure from the Editors-in-Chief who had received complaints from Beckwith and others, where, if she did not revise her paper, they anticipated adding a negative preface to the issue.

Neither Glenn nor I had been directly contacted by the Editors-in-Chief about this. When I learned from him that one of our contributors had been contacted directly, I called the Editor-in-Chief who had accepted our special issue to object to their having gone to one of our contributors rather than coming to us. I regard that action as inappropriate and inexcusable, where I began an exchange with them (via email) in which I laid out the case for not requesting revisions and for not adding such a preface, which, I explained, would be insulting to our contributors and to us as guest editors as well as be setting a terrible precedent for the future. If they wanted revisions, they should have been requested when the issue was submitted, not after its acceptance.

Laudan complains about the Pennock paper, but the Editors-in-Chief have never said anything to either of us about any article other than the one about which they heard LOUD AND CLEAR from Beckwith and his supporters in the ID movement. We could debate about the tone and texture of other papers, no doubt, where this subject tends to invite passion and rhetoric. If Laudan thinks we should have reined in Pennock, that’s fine. But until now, that has not figured at all in any of the discussion–and does not appear to have had any role to play in influencing the Editors-in-Chief in their actions. The question is not whether Glenn and I were flawless in our editing but the role assumed by the Editors-in-Chief in response to the complaints they received.

The deliberations among the Editors-in-Chief took several weeks, possibly months, but I was eventually notified twice (by the Editor-in-Chief who had accepted the special issue) that the Editors-in-Chief had decided not to request revisions. He subsequently notified me that they had also decided against adding a negative preface. At that point in time, both Glenn and I believed that all was well. We were therefore shocked and chagrined to discover that such a preface had indeed been published in the hard copy of the journal. It is very difficult for me to understand how any professional academician, much less any serious philosopher, could not find fault with the actions taken by the Editors-in-Chief, which were duplicitous, deceitful, and professionally unethical. In my opinion, this is not even remotely “a close call”.

Jim

[Rich Booher]

Here's another feature of the Beckwith article worth commenting on. On the first page it states that it was both received and accepted on 7 February, 2011. My quick scan of comparisons between the receipt and acceptance dates of articles shows this to be unique. Most articles have gaps of months between receipt and acceptance. The articles included in the special issue on "Evolution and Its Alternatives" seems to also have a very small gap between receipt and acceptance of article - 2 days.

If the Beckwith article was both received and accepted for publication on the same day, this might suggest that there was a pre-arrangement to allow Beckwith a voice in the journal.

[Alastair Wilson]

Rich Booher's observations suggest that blind peer review was dispensed with both for the Beckwith reply and for the articles in the special issue. In the case of the special issue articles, this suggestion is confirmed by this recent statement by James Fetzer:

'[The papers in the special issue] were peer-reviewed by Glenn Branch and me as the guest editors, which is typically the case.'

(Source: http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/04/on-the-response-from-synthese-unanswered-questions.html#comment-6a00d8341ef41d53ef014e8808d3c1970d )

Although the EIC's have clearly behaved unprofessionally in this matter, I also think the behaviour of the special issue editors in dispensing with blind peer review was regrettable and risks undermining the reputation of Synthese (or at least: of special issues of Synthese.)

As someone who has had a recent contribution to a Synthese special issue rigorously peer-reviewed, I can confirm that not all special issues of Synthese operate without independent blind review. In my case the two (excellent) sets of reviewer's comments significantly improved the paper and caught several instances of inappropriate tone; perhaps the papers in this special issue could have benefited from similar treatment.

[Rich Booher]

I don't mean to be casting general aspersions concerning the lack of peer review in all of the concerned cases. Given the role of the guest editors in reviewing articles for the special issue, I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that it violates a norm for issues like this - I'll leave that to others with more experience to say.

However, allowing a charlatan and hack like Beckwith to publish in a journal like Synthese under a special arrangement is highly dubious. It suggests that the allegations of pressure being placed on the editors by the ID mob have something to them.

[James H. Fetzer]

For the sake of clarity, all of us--Glenn and I and the Editors-in-Chief--had agreed that it would be appropriate for Beckwith to have the opportunity to respond in a subsequent issue. The brief
interval between submission and acceptance of the special issue by one of the Editors-in-Chief was, at least in part, no doubt, because he had confidence in me, since I had edited many special issues and served for a decade as an editor of SYNTHESE. I know that made a difference.

My tendency is to give authors wide latitude in the expression of their points of view (short of libel, of course, which was an exaggerated claim from one of Beckwith's more zealous colleagues).
This is a subject that tends to engender passions on both sides and has ramifications beyond the confines of the classroom. With respect to the standards of the journal, however, the quality of his response, especially in this instance, weakens their alleged justification for the preface.

Glenn and I, by the way, were both highly qualified to referee these papers. Two of my most recent books, THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), and especially RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2009), in which I address the scientific standing of evolutionary theories, creationism, creation science, and ID, are devoted to central issues of this kind. For more on my relevant background, review my vita at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ and the special vita on "Evolution and Cognition".

An article of my own, "Evolution and Atheism: Has Griffin reconciled Science and Religion?", appears in the special issue, which everyone can evaluate, and "Is Evolution an Optimizing Process?", in THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010), which I co-edited with the late Ellery Eells, has also recently appeared. With Glenn's extensive background, I believe we were well positioned for this assignment--and when they wanted revisions to Barbara's study, I sought another expert opinion.

Had we been less qualified for this project, then we might have solicited the assistance of other independent referees. I find no fault in those who go about this differently, especially when they may have less experience than Glenn and I with this subject domain and with guest editing issues for SYNTHESE. So far as I have been able to discern, we and our authors fulfilled our part of the bargain, but the Editors-in-Chief mishandled theirs. So I find no merit in this latest criticism.

As for allowing Beckwith to publish a response, Glenn and I thought it was a suitable compromise with the Editors-in-Chief, especially since we believed that they had not only relinquished in their effort to have Barbara revise her paper, but had also dropped the idea of a negative preface. We took for it granted that, especially under the circumstances, they would be painstaking and diligent in their review of any response he would submit. The evidence, alas, suggests that they were not.

[Thom Brooks]

So when will the Synthese Editors-in-Chiefs respond to these serious allegations? Potential contributors may have an interest in learning more about this before coming to a view about where to submit their work.

[Darrell Rowbottom]

'Had we been less qualified for this project, then we might have solicited the assistance of other independent referees.'

It is as I feared. (Notice also the use of 'independent'. The suggestion appears to be that the guest editors were independent.)

I have also guest edited for journals (including Synthese). All the papers were sent out for blind review, irrespective of my (or any co-editor's) willingness and ability to comment on several _in addition_. Why? First, guest editors are invested in the people they have asked to contribute publishing successfully. It is hard to say "Although we invited you to contribute, I'm afraid we cannot accept your paper", although bad external reviews can make it much more difficult not to. (I once had to reject a paper like this, to the detriment of my career.) Furthermore, if one loses too many contributions then it costs time and trouble to replace them; rejection is independently undesirable on these grounds. Second, if you're giving non-blind comments, as you appear to have done from the acknowledgements, then you may be less critical than you otherwise might. Third, and finally, a further opinion from someone with a different perspective, e.g. a less partisan one, is important. (In short, expertise is definitely not the only issue here.)

It is regrettable if the EiC said they'd not do something, only to do it. But this kind of thing happens all the time. (If I had boycotted anyone who did the opposite of what they said, barring an apology, my marriage would have been over a long time ago!) So I think we should focus on the act of publishing the disclaimer (and of requesting revisions from an author after publication, which is not ideal, but is hardly grounds for a great stir under the circumstances, in my view). Is the disclaimer really so bad? Note that the comments concern _some of_ the papers, not the authors; so it is hard to see how they insult any of, let alone all of, the latter. As for all the stuff about 'caving in', that has now been explicitly denied.

Anyway, that's my last word on this issue. I think the whole thing should be put to rest.

BL COMMENT: Just on the last point: I noted that Professor Symons denied that they "caved in" to pressure, but he fell silent when asked if they had been lobbied by Beckwith and allies, and, in particular, whether someone had alleged the Forrest article was libelous. This makes the denial unconvincing to my mind.

[Alastair Norcross]

Says Darrell Rowbottom, "It is as I feared." How utterly condescending and insulting. Rowbottom is clearly implying that two qualified and highly accomplished philosophers are unable to make good judgments about the merits of contributions to the special issue without calling in outside help. As for taking the editors' word that they didn't cave in, that's simply naive. Did anyone expect the editors to say "It's a fair cop, we caved"? It's just as well this is Rowbottom's last word on this issue. He started out absurd, with a call for the guest editors to apologize, and finished insulting and naive.

[Mohan Matthen]

I read the Forrest article in Synthese, and am having some difficulty figuring out why the EiCs consider it discourteous, impolite, or (most of all) unfair. The article is among other things an examination of the epistemology of ID theory, and in particular of whether inferences to intelligent design can be considered epistemologically on a par with scientific reasoning. It considers this question in the context of whether it is constitutional to permit the teaching of ID theory in public schools on the grounds that it is science, just as Darwinian evolution is.

In this context, Forrest provides a lengthy exposé of religious rhetoric by some of the proponents of ID theory, including some that predates their entry into the ID debate. This exposé is couched in emotionally charged language, to be sure, but only in response to what Forrest reasonably takes to be a public policy aim of the ID proponents and their own rhetoric. I agree that if Dembski, Beckwith, et al were engaging in "pure philosophy" a more dispassionate tone might have been appropriate. But it is clear upon reading Forrest's article that these people are doing nothing of the kind. Rather, they are engaging in what people on their side label a "Wedge Strategy" which self-consciously aims to establish doubt about whether one can dismiss ID on rational grounds. They wager that once ID theory gains a veneer of plausibility, however thin, the courts and the newspapers will find it hard to rule it out. Once lawyers and scientists have to ARGUE that the ID position is sophistical, the courts will be obliged to permit that argument to be taught in the biology classroom. And so the ID theorists flood the airwaves with plausible sounding arguments, which they know perfectly well to have been refuted.

Given the polemical purpose of Beckwith and his friends, and given that this purpose has been adequately evidenced by Forrest, it seems to me that a certain tone of outrage is perfectly appropriate. Some months ago when Thomas Nagel argued that ID should find its place in school curricula, it seemed more appropriate to argue respectfully against him, albeit in a somewhat exasperated tone of voice. With Beckwith and Dembski, I think it perfectly appropriate to go further and to excoriate them for bad motives (not just bad faith).

By the way, I completely disagree with Darrell Rowbottom's assessment of the Forrest paper. On "Only a Theory" he questions Forrest's use of biographical detail and asks why this is relevant in assessing the worth of philosophical argument. This seems completely to miss the point. He also says that Forrest is "surprisingly assertive" about the role of faith in science, though (according to DR) her attitude towards reason and experience is a matter of faith. This too seems like a total misreading: Forrest, following Haack, was contrasting science, as a "federation of kinds of enquiry" with faith and religion which affirm certain propositions.

The Forrest paper is not an original work of philosophy, and is not intended to be. However, it is a powerful piece of contemporary historical research and is, moreover, quite astute in its exposure of philosophical fallacy. Even on a "pure philosophy" level, it is instructive to read of the perverted uses to which bad philosophical argument can be put. Moreover, its rhetorical temperature is perfectly appropriate in a work of this sort.

[Mohan Matthen]

Incidentally, Darrell Rowbottom writes, above:

"I have also guest edited for journals (including Synthese). All the papers were sent out for blind review, irrespective of my (or any co-editor's) willingness and ability to comment on several _in addition_."

I can't find any mention of an edited issue of Synthese on Dr Rowbottom's website, or on PhilPapers.

[David Miller]

Submitted without comment:
Synthese vol. 178, no. 1 (2010):
Stance and rationality: a perspective
Guest edited by Darrell P. Rowbottom and Otávio Bueno.

[Gary Hurd]

I think that all of us who have been activists in the cause of science education, and opponents of creationism, have come to consider professional creationists like Beckwith (in spite of his recent break with the Discovery Institute) as very immoral, and dishonest people. I thought that Dr. Forrest was very reserved in her Synthese article.

What I would like to see is for the general editors, and the publisher, to again make the issue public access as well as the rejoinder Beckwith was allowed to slip into the next issue. Too many people have too many opinions without having any familiarity with the actual content of the articles, or the backgrounds of the authors.