[eDebate] Sanchez's double-bind about rules and evidence production
Tue May 12 02:19:39 CDT 2009
Yeah, thats the part that is hard to deal with...one has to ask why did he
attach his name to it...if its fake why attribute him self...i mean why not
just let it go from the other name? In some ways it seems like the part of
the ethical that triumphed is what exposed us all to the unethical...it
would have been a ton easier to just say it was admiral stockdale, use
medicore email security, and sniker with his trusted friends...so why did he
put his name on it at all? Pride in having a published work...surely
not...because there are any number of things that justin could write about
in equally selective publications and not cause all this...so why if its the
elaborate scam that some suggest it is would his name appear anywhere...just
a small part of me thinks a sociology experiment is underway...
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>wrote:
> The esteemed Mr. Sanchez believes that I have been confronted w an apparent
> contradiction between holding that anyone can produce evidence and by
> contention that this situation is a clear-cut case of cheating. The cheating
> is not that Skarb apparently wrote evidence. For instance, if I were to
> publish an article supporting claims that later appeared in my dissertation,
> that would not be academically dishonest. Same thing w Skarb. If he were to
> produce some evidence on the internet, published under his own name, and
> used that evidence in a debate round, the issue in my opinion would no
> longer be one of dishonesty, but rather one of poorly qualified evidence.
> However, much like if I were to pretend to be Michael Burgoon and publish
> corroborating research that later appeared in my dissertation, to lie about
> the identity of the source of the SPS article is academically dishonest. It
> is cheating. If I were to do this during the course of my dissertation
> research, I would be out of graduate school and likely shut out of academics
> for life. I believe that this situation is particularly nefarious because
> the association between author and true source is intentionally obscured by
> the use of a faux email address and false qualifications for the pen name. I
> know that many in our activity support defending the indefensible, but I do
> not see how this behavior is not the textbook case of evidence fabrication.
> Writing bad evidence is not illegal; fabricating great evidence is. The line
> is clear.
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman