TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

February 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:47:40 -0500
Reply-To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07b1ea24a8370565d4d7fa"
From:
Frank Ambrosio <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 kB) , text/html (10 kB)
Gregg,

Condolences. Your essay has become collateral damage in the culture wars.
the only thing that can evoke that kind of visceral hostility over an
academic publication is the whiff of death caught in the nostrils of some
human animal. live to fight another day.

More when I have read the manuscript, which I did not get to when you first
sent it, but now that I know it is worthy of  the "Hunger Games" I most
certainly will.

Yours,

Frank

Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Georgetown University
202-687-7441

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi TOK List,
>
>
>
>   Back in October I submitted the attached manuscript, Intersubjective
> Mental Behaviorism to the journal Behavior and Philosophy. I had shared it
> on the list previously. I learned today it was strongly rejected. Attached
> are the reviews, which I share to give folks a flavor of how many scholars
> react to the vision.
>
>
>
> *Here are some interesting quotes:*
>
> *Reviewer #1*
> I *dislike this manuscript intensely* and I excoriate it page by page
> below. … If he meant to write for a preteen audience he submitted to the
> wrong journal.
>
>
>
> *Review #2*
>
> The only thing that one can be sure of in the end is that the much
> ballyhooed ToK scheme depicts science as a hierarchy of organizational
> levels, like numerous other similar schemas—e.g., that of EO Wilson, or,
> to mention the first one, that of Augusta Comte. In short, the piece is *neither
> penetrating nor original.* So, I do not recommend publication.
>
>
>
> *Reviewer #3*
>
> The absence of all this (background review) from the manuscript suggests
> a lack of awareness on the author’s part about a very extensive, rich
> research field that bears directly on his ideas but makes them pale in
> scope, rigor, technical detail, and erudition. The vastness of this field
> makes this manuscript look *superficial and naive*.
>
>
>
> To the doctoral students on this list, I share this to let you know the
> review game can be pretty brutal.
>
>
>
> To the general list, I think this provides a good prompt for thinking
> about justification systems and the academy.
>
>
>
> Welcome thoughts and feedback if anyone has them.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* José E. Burgos [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:49 PM
> *To:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Editorial Decision on Ms B&P-10-17-2017
>
>
>
> Dear Dr. Henriques,
>
> Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Intersubjective Mental
> Behaviorism: Using the Tree of Knowledge System to Develop a Holistic
> philosophy" to *Behavior and Philosophy*. I now have three reviews of
> your manuscript. I apologize for the unusually long review process. A
> reviewer failed to come through late in the process, forcing me to seek a
> new reviewer. My sincerest and deepest apologies for this. As you will see,
> the three reviews were negative and recommend rejection. After carefully
> reading the manuscript myself, I must agree with them. The overall
> criticism is that your general ToK proposal is not novel (see Reviewer 3's
> very compelling point that you make no reference whatsoever to the very
> extensive but directly relevant specialized literature on complexity
> theory, rendering your manuscript deeply uninformed and out of touch with
> that field). Your more specific proposal of ISMB is behavioristic in a sui
> generis sense that does not correspond to that in which Skinnerian
> behaviorism is behavioristic. Moreover, ISMB relies on using the term
> "behavior" as synonymous with "functioning," as a foundation for your
> proposal. Such a semantic foundation, however, seems rather weak.
>
> I am sorry that the news are not better, and I hope that this outcome does
> not prevent you from submitting future work to our journal.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> José E. Burgos
>
> Editor
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
> 1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2