From Sun Nov 24 12:52:02 1996
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 10:24:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Furedy <
To:
Cc: John Furedy <
Subject: Linda Siegel's reaction to my nasty remarks
John J. Furedy, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
(email: )
Department of Psychology
100 St. George Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
------Forwarded message ------
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:07:00 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <
To:
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
The original message was received at Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:07:00 -0400
from furedy@localhost
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
(unrecoverable error)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 ... User unknown
----- Original message follows -----
Received: by psych.utoronto.ca (950413.SGI.8.6.12/951211.SGI)
id HAA04746; Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:07:00 -0400
Return-Path: <furedy
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 07:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Furedy <
To:
cc: John Furedy <
Subject: Re: your mail (fwd)
Message-ID: <
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Doreen, FYI. My reaction was obviously very hasty, and I still don't have a clean copy of their proposal to look at, but I thought you should see this, especially as regards the comment about withdrawal of data being confined only to deception. As I remember we said there was a broader implication, and, in any case, even with deception, this is a very dubious concept.
I know you're busy with other things at this stage, but advise me about what you think I shuld reply at this stage. All the best, John.
John J. Furedy, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
(email: )
Department of Psychology
100 St. George Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
------Forwarded message ------
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda Siegel <
To: John Furedy <
Cc: CPASCI <, ,
, ,
,
Subject: Re: your mail
see my reply in caps
Linda Siegel ()
EPSE - 2125 Main Mall TEL 604 822 1893
University of British Columbia FAX 604 822 3302
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4
On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, John Furedy wrote:
Linda (and CPASCI), accustomed as I am to calling a spade a bloody shovel let me be true to form on this one by proposing an offensive, but apt, parallel. Suppose an undergraduate student handed in a draft paper, and I provided the student with some criticisms, including one of two major and obvious objections, as well as some minor ones. Suppose that the student sent me back a "communique" which outlined how my objections would be taken into account, but showed no understanding at all of the major and obvious objections. Suppose, further, that it was clear to me that the student was "impressed by the dedication and openess" of the student. Nevertheless, ff the student asked me what grade the revision is likely to receive, I would say: F. No matter how "seriously"s/he was
"trying to arrive at a useful and important" essay, the fact that the student ignored the major and obvious objections would indicate a lack of intellectual resources for mastering the task of adequate revision. THE ANALOGY FAILS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A STUDENT PAPER AND MORE IMPORTANTLY YOU HAVE MISINTERPRETED THE COMMUNIQUE I QUOTE FROM IT " THE REVISION PROCESS SHOULD CONTINUE UNTIL MARCH 1997 THE WORKING GROUP BELIEVES THAT THE CODE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS A STATIC DOCOMENT THE FOLLOWING ARE MAJOR ISSUES THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL ADDRESS (BY IMPLICATION NOT THE ONLY ISSUES - I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALL ISSUES ARE BEING ADDRESSED P. 8 OF THE DOCUMENT WE HOPE THESE COMMENTS WILL HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE DOCUMENT WILL BE MODIFIED AND REASSURE YOU THAT WE AREK TAKING VERY SERIOUSL ALL THE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS RECEIVED BY THE WORKING GROUP THESE STATEMENTS CANNOT POSSIBLY INTERPRETED THAT THE COMMUNIQUE IS THE DRAFT OF THE REVISION To return to the Tricouncil document, and I said previously, the notion that subjects should determine, in the light of whether they approve of the hypothesis, whether their data can be use, is absurd.THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID OR INTENDED IF THERE WAS DECEPTION INVOLVED THEN THE PERSON HAD THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW INCLUDING DATA - BUT NOT WITHDRAW DATA UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOTE IF YOU OBJECT TO THIS RESTRICTION ON DECEPTION MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN It makes Canadian research an international laughing-stock, and also raises in the question in the intelligent taxpayer's mind whether *any* funds should be devoted to this sort of so-called research. Yet the communique does not even mention this major and obvious problem (which can be explained to an intelligent shop assistant in 30 seconds), let alone indicate that it intends to *totally* remove this ridiculous proposal from the next draft. Under these circumstances, although I appreciate your difficutly as a current member of the committee, I think it's inadvisable to be concerned about the committee's feelings,THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE THE DIGNITY OF A REPLY given that its latest communique indicates a total lack of awareness of gross and obvious major problems (like subjects determining whether their data can be used on the basis of whether they "like" the hypothesis--every time I refer to this piece of idiocy, I wonder whether I'm dreaming) in the document, and portends the same lack of undertanding in the revision to come (by which time it will probably be too late to do anything).
All the best, John.
John J. Furedy, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, University of Toronto and
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
(email: )
Department of Psychology
100 St. George Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A1
Phone: (416) 978-5201
Fax: (416) 978-4811
On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Linda Siegel wrote:
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linda Siegel <
To: John Furedy <
Cc: CPASCI <, ,
, ,
,
Subject: Re: your mail
The communique was not meant to address all the issues - these are being addressed in the revision process. The committee is seriously considering all comments so please please please do not jump to the conclusion that you are being ignored A print copy of the commique can be obtained from the committee secretary I have been impressed by the dedication and openess of the committee I think it is not productive to start insulting them- they are willing to listen I have many of the concerns that you do and often the wording of the draft was inappropriate and misleading. (I was not a member of the old committee). But they are seriously trying to arrive at a useful and important document that addresses many issues. Constructive help would be very very very welcome - but please address all correspondence to the committee secretary Linda Siegel ()
EPSE - 2125 Main Mall TEL 604 822 1893
University of British Columbia FAX 604 822 3302
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4