Friday, October 21, 2005

More on Behe and "review"

This exchange occurred during Behe's cross examination:

Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that’s what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?

A that’s what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.

Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?

A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.

Q So you were reviewing your own work?

A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.

Q Which was your own contribution?

A that’s — yes, that’s correct.

Q that’s not typically how the term “critical review” is used; would you agree with that?

A Yeah, that’s correct.

Q So when the publishers of Pandas indicate that you were a critical reviewer of Pandas, that’s somewhat misleading, isn’t it?

MR. MUISE: Objection. Assumes that he understands what their purpose for listing him as a critical reviewer.

THE COURT: He just answered the question that that’s not a critical review, so the objection is overruled. You can ask that question.


Q Advertising you as a critical reviewer of this book is misleading to the students, isn’t it?

MR. MUISE: Objection, that’s argumentative.

THE COURT: it’s cross examination. it’s appropriate cross. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I m sorry, could you repeat the question?


Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn’t it?

A I disagree. As I said, that’s not the typical way that the term “critical reviewer” is used, but nonetheless, in my opinion I don’t think it is misleading.

1 comment:

Einzige said...

That's some funny stuff.

What a maroon!