Responding to Joe Carter on Sternberg and Coddington

Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost has replied to my post that pointed out that none of the bloggers who jumped so eagerly on the Sternberg situation as proof of his martyrdom have bothered to mention the other side of the story, Coddington's denial of the accusations. He says:

While there are at least two different views to this controversy - Sternberg's claims and Coddington's rebuttal -- Ed appears to be claiming that both are to be considered equally credible. While there is no way for us to know exactly who is telling the truth, let's look at how each side's point of view was presented:

Sternberg filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. By making the claims and signing Form OSC-11 (2-05) , Sternberg acknowledged that he was aware that making a false statement or concealing material fact would be committing a criminal offense punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. He also agreed to speak on record with a columnist who was writing an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, ensuring that his claims would be on public record in a national newspaper.

Coddington was offered a chance to present his side of the story in the WSJ article but chose not to do so. Instead, he thought it would be more appropriate to present his rebuttal in the comment's section of a blog.

Apparently, my friend Ed is accusing me of "confirmation bias" for assuming that claims made by a person who risks national embarrassment, a six-digit monetary fine, and a prison term, should be considered slightly more credible than a comment left on a blog.

Unfortunately, this is quite an obvious distortion of what I said. If I had said, "Coddington has denied the accusation and therefore Sternberg is lying", this response might be on point. But I didn't say that. In fact, I didn't take any position whatsoever on who is telling the truth in this situation. What I said, rather, was that neither Carter, nor any of the other bloggers who so eagerly jumped on the initial Klinghoffer article as incontrovertible proof of a "Darwinian inquisition" that was oppressing heretics, had even mentioned that there was another side to the story, as though the mere accusation was enough to justify the conclusion and any thought that the accusations might be false did not even warrant consideration. It's one thing to compare the relative strength of the two sides and conclude that you think one side has a stronger case at this point (as Joe attempts to do in his follow up); it's quite another to take one side's accusations, without bothering to even consider the denial or look at any evidence that either side might offer, and assume them to be true without even mentioning that there is another side to it. The first might be defensible, the second clearly is not. But let's look at Joe's arguments here a bit closer and see if they are justified.

Joe argues that the fact that Sternberg filed his complaint with the OSC, a procedure that includes a possible fine for making false statements, and talked to Klinghoffer so he could write his op-ed piece on it, lends extra credibility to his accusations. This strikes me as overclaimed, at the very least. First, by this reasoning, anyone who ever makes a criminal or civil or administrative complaint about virtually anything, all of which come with potential punishment for making false statements or perjury, must therefore be telling the truth. Yet we know, of course, that people file false reports all the time. Secondly, this argument presumes that the only two possibilities are that he's telling the truth or he's lying, and those are not the only two possibilities. Sternberg may well be telling the truth so far as he knows it, but overreacting to second hand stories that are themselves distorted, or mixing in his emotional reactions with the objective facts of the situation, or that Klinghoffer's article (which is the only statement of the accusations that is publicly available - no one has seen the actual complaint, only Klinghoffer's report about it) mixes those things together. Indeed, I think this is the most plausible explanation at this point, and I'll explain why.

Remember that Klinghoffer's article is not the same thing as the legal complaint that Sternberg filed. It is, rather, his own ideologically biased report of that complaint and his conversation with Sternberg. It is not subject to any fines for false or exaggerated statements, and a close reading of it shows that there is quite a mishmash of objective claims and highly emotional responses to those claims. For instance, Klinghoffer states that Sternberg has been "punished by the museum's Department of Zoology" and quotes Sternberg as saying, "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career." But in fact, this whole thing has nothing to do with his scientific career. Sternberg's career, his job, is at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, not at the Smithsonian, and there is not even a hint in Klinghoffer's article of any threat to that career. His position as a Research Associate at the Smithsonian is an unpaid, non-employment position. It is little more than a courtesy given to a group of scientists employed elsewhere who want access to the collections of the Smithsonian without direct staff supervision. They are given keys to the facility and a workspace at the museum, but they are not employees of it. And the fact is that Sternberg still has exactly the same access to those collections that he has always had as a Research Associate.

Remember also that Coddington's denial of the accusations is also subject to the same potential fines for perjury. The most substantive accusation, the only one that really matters, is that Coddington took away Sternberg's space and access to the collections. But Coddington says that this was part of a larger reorganization that was begun before the PBSW situation took place involving 17 people and 20 offices. That is a claim that should be very easily proven true or false given the internal documentation that must accompany it, and the numbers of people involved. One could just as easily make Joe's argument the other way - why would Coddington make such an easily disprovable statement under the same threat of punishment for making false statements?

Joe also makes the argument that Coddington's denial should be taken less seriously because he "was offered a chance to present his side of the story in the WSJ article but chose not to do so. Instead, he thought it would be more appropriate to present his rebuttal in the comment's section of a blog." But this is an unjustified conclusion. Klinghoffer's article only says, "Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events." It does not say that he "chose not to do so", it only says that he did not return phone messages. That could also quite easily be a result of having been out of town when Klinghoffer tried to contact him. We don't know how many times messages were left, or over what period of time, nor do we know that Coddington received them prior to the publication of the article, so it is unjustifed to claim that he chose not to do so because he preferred to respond in the comments on a blog. I am on the board of an organization with several scientists and academics, and believe me it is often difficult to get a response to inquiries for days and even weeks at a time because they may be out of town or deeply involved in a research project with an impending deadline. Consider also that there may have been a period of time, in the wake of Sternberg filing his complaint, when the Smithsonian's attorneys may well have told Coddington not to make any public statements until they had had a chance to review the evidence. Indeed, Coddington explicitly refers to limitations on what he can say publicly at this point in his response. So there are at least two more plausible conclusions to reach rather than assuming that Coddington chose not to respond to Klinghoffer's messages because he preferred to respond in the comments at the Panda's Thumb.

In summary, let me say this. I take Sternberg's accusations very seriously. If it is true that Coddington took away his keys and space and tried to deny him access to the collections - though it may not technically be a violation of the anti-discrimination laws because Sternberg is not his employee - then I think Coddington should be punished, perhaps even fired. His claim that Sternberg was never denied access to the collections and that he was merely moved as part of a larger reorganization of space should be easily proven or disproven by the OSC in their investigation of the complaint. If that is a lie, Coddington should be removed from his position immediately. But if it's true, then Sternberg will have no one to blame but himself for the demise of his career because that false accusation will follow him as well.

I don't know what the truth is at this point (though I do have some sources of information not publicly available at this point that make me lean toward the Coddington side), and neither does Joe. And that was my entire point, that intellectual honesty at least demands an acknowledgement that there are two sides to the story, not one, and that it cannot merely be presumed that the side that is telling the truth is the one you want to be telling the truth. To leap from the mere accusation to a conclusion that just happens to conform to the "Darwinist inquisition" meme that he and the other bloggers have a lot invested in is pretty clearly a case of confirmation bias. And I suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot, and similar accusations were made against, say, the folks at the Discovery Institute, those same bloggers would be saying the exact same thing I am saying about these accusations - that you should not jump to a conclusion without seeing the evidence for the accusations, not the accusations themselves.

More like this

This you just have to find funny. Jonathan Witt has written a post on the DI blog about the Sternberg/Smithsonian situation. In the process, he has made clear the utter hypocrisy of the DI in handling criticism. The DI blog, you see, steadfastly refuses to link to the Panda's Thumb, which is the…
Some of you are aware, I'm sure, of the controversy that has been raging throughout the right side of the blogosphere concerning Richard von Sternberg and the Smithsonian. Based solely on an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, everyone from the Discovery Institute to the Worldnutdaily and a…
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,…
Bobby Maddex, senior editor of Crux magazine, has posted a response to my article (posted here and at Panda's Thumb) pointing out several false claims in a couple of blog entries associated with Crux, one by him and one by John Coleman. John Coleman responded both rationally and graciously in a…

I don't know what the truth is at this point (though I do have some sources of information not publicly available at this point that make me lean toward the Coddington side), and neither does Joe. And that was my entire point, that intellectual honesty at least demands an acknowledgement that there are two sides to the story, not one, and that it cannot merely be presumed that the side that is telling the truth is the one you want to be telling the truth.

Perhaps I was presuming too much but I just took it for granted that there was two sides to the story. But I agree that we can't know who is telling the truth. Because he has put his integrity on the line I'll give Sternberg the benefit of the doubt -- for now. But if the investigation finds that Coddington did nothing wrong then I'll be the first to call for Sternberg's head.

Ed, may I offer one more possibility concerning Coddington's choice to present his rebuttal in the comments section of a blog? It could be that Coddington wanted control over his own words. When Joe Carter states that Coddington was offered "a chance to present his side of the story in the WSJ article," he's not quite right. What Coddington was offered was most likely nothing more than a chance to be interviewed by Klinghoffer- somebody who obviously has an axe to grind on this issue. Klinghoffer would still have had complete control over what portions of the interview he chose to put in the column and how he chose to characterize and analyse Coddington's response. Coddington may have wished to aviod that, and if this is correct I can't blame him. The comments sections of a blog is certainly one place where one can get one's position circulated quickly while retaining control over what is printed.

Perhaps I was presuming too much but I just took it for granted that there was two sides to the story. But I agree that we can't know who is telling the truth. Because he has put his integrity on the line I'll give Sternberg the benefit of the doubt -- for now.
My only problem with this is that Coddington's integrity is also on the line here, so I don't think this argument works very well.
But if the investigation finds that Coddington did nothing wrong then I'll be the first to call for Sternberg's head.
Well, it may not find anything at all. The OSC may well dismiss it simply because Sternberg is not an employee of the NMNH and therefore the rules do not apply to him. I think we would both agree that's not a good outcome, as it doesn't resolve the question of what really happened here. Regardless of whether he is technically an employee or not, someone here is lying and whoever it is deserves to have their credibility destroyed and to lose their position. You and I will both agree on that much.

According to a comment by Keanus on the Pnda's Thumb (#14991) the Smithsonian has backed Coddington on the question of whether Sternberg was denied access to the collections, keys or office space.

The Smithsonian's reputation is also at stake.

By Paul King (not verified) on 08 Feb 2005 #permalink

Great post. Of course, its part of the larger puzzle, which I looked at from the publicly available material (i.e., Meyer's article, the journal in question, etc.) as well as Carter's wholesale broadsides against scientists.

Saying things like "heretic in the Church of Darwin," "ostracizing of Richard Sternberg," (no alleged there) "[t]he claim that the scientific community encourages dissent ...is also utter nonsense," to any scientist do not appear to be evidence of taking it "for granted" that there are 2 sides to the story, as Mr. Carter now claims, and was why I originally requested an apology from Mr. Carter, as I took his post as a smear of science and scientists and engineers in general. The most absurd Carter quote from there "Mumon, you are an engineer. Please stop referring to yourself as a 'scientist.' It's just silly," as anyone who's been within 100 feet of an engineer knows that we're applied scientists by definition.

It is well past time for Carter to admit his errors in this regard.

While there are at least two different views to this controversy - Sternberg's claims and Coddington's rebuttal -- Ed appears to be claiming that both are to be considered equally credible.

They are not equally credible. An official statement from the Smithsonian's public relations department is far more credible than Sternberg's allegations filtered through Klinghoffer.

Mumon:

The most absurd Carter quote from there "Mumon, you are an engineer. Please stop referring to yourself as a 'scientist.' It's just silly," as anyone who's been within 100 feet of an engineer knows that we're applied scientists by definition.

Wow. That's the first statement of Joe Carter's that I can get behind entirely. Sorry, Mumon, but saying "engineers are applied scientists" is a silly claim. Engineers may well apply scientific findings in their work, but that doesn't mean that the engineer is automatically thereby doing science. My masters degree comes from a computer science and engineering department, I have an educational background in both science and engineering; my wife has balance of a sort: two engineering degrees and two science degrees. I definitely qualify as having come within 100 feet of engineers, having worked in the aerospace industry. And I say "Fie!" to your claim.

Now, as someone who can lay claim to both labels, I'm well aware that there exist people who qualify as engineers and scientists, and that there are even those whose educational background is entirely engineering but who have pursued a career in science. But that wasn't your claim. You were saying that engineers universally fall within the class of "scientist". And that is a silly claim.

But what will be interesting is to see if Joe Carter applies this consistently: Does he publicly object to the signatories to the DI "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" whose background has no science, just engineering, for instance? And while we're at it, the mathematicians have no better claim to the title of "scientist". I count 44 possible engineering pretenders on the DI list and another 16 possible mathematics pretenders.

On considering more, I suspect that the most likely explanation is that Klinghoffer's article overstates the issues. In other words that Klinghoffer's spin of Sternberg's spin looks much worse than the material in the actual complaint. While in the absence of facts we can only speculate there is no need to assume that Sternberg lied in the complaint OR that Coddington lied in his response.

An example -Klinghoffer says:
[quote]
In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs
[/quote]

Yet Sternberg is apparently still working at the Smithsonian so presumably he has keys and access.

Coddington stated:
[quote]
Well prior to the publication of the Meyer article and my awareness of it, I asked him and another Research Associate to move as part of a larger and unavoidable reorganization of space involving 17 people and 20 offices
[/quote]

and that as part of that move Sternberg:
[quote]
requested space in an entirely different part of the Museum, which I provided, and which he currently occupies
[/quote]

So we have a significant reorganisation of space, and Sternberg has complicated matters by asking to be placed elsewhere in the museum - likely NOT on the "department floor". Also we must allow that the reasons why the move was "unavoidable" may well have implied other disruption. Given all this it is possible that Sternberg - in returning the keys for his original office - was left without keys or access for a short period of time. If Sternberg felt that time to be excessive he might well complain on that ground.

By Paul King (not verified) on 09 Feb 2005 #permalink

Wes,

I am a Chemical Engineer and title on my first degree clearly says "Bachelor of Applied Science". In fact, at my university, Nursing and Home Economics also fell into the Applied Science faculty.

Applied Science is a pretty broad term :-)

Having said all that, I wouldn't go so far as Mumon does and constantly call myself a scientist, but to the best of my knowledge there is no degree granted anywhere that confers the title of "Scientist"... it's a generic term that describes the work that someone does, not an official title.

Don

On considering more, I suspect that the most likely explanation is that Klinghoffer's article overstates the issues. In other words that Klinghoffer's spin of Sternberg's spin looks much worse than the material in the actual complaint. While in the absence of facts we can only speculate there is no need to assume that Sternberg lied in the complaint OR that Coddington lied in his response.
I also think this is the most plausible scenario. I would like to get a peek at the actual text of the complaint to see what it says. I would bet a dozen donuts that the claims found in the complaint are considerably less serious than the claims found in Klinghoffer's article. This is quite common, where news reports or opinion pieces exaggerate and distort what actually happened to score PR points. It's even common for those who make the complaint to exaggerate it in the press. Look at the Steven Williams lawsuit, where the public press releases ("Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom!") were wildly exaggerated from what the complaint actually says.

DonM,

Having said all that, I wouldn't go so far as Mumon does and constantly call myself a scientist, but to the best of my knowledge there is no degree granted anywhere that confers the title of "Scientist"... it's a generic term that describes the work that someone does, not an official title.

Yes, I agree with that. You stated my thesis in a much more succinct way.