From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:38:31 GMT

In article <546g5f$ki4@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
>In <852859479wnr@chatham.demon.co.uk> Oliver Sparrow
> writes: 
>>
>>
>>Which bit don't you like? 'Cognitive' or 'science'?
>>
>>_________________________________________________
>>
>>  Oliver Sparrow
>>  ohgs@chatham.demon.co.uk
>>
>
>Cognitive if you assume its computational, science if you 
>assume that excluding feelings of worthlessness from serious 
>consideration in your paradigm has anything to do with 
>science.
>
>
>Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of So-Called Cognitive 
>Science
>
>An Amateur Psychologist's Documented Chronologue of a Frustrating 
>Conversation With 'The Society for Philosohpy and Psychology Regarding
>a Psychical Anomaly
>
>My crusade to obtain a proper hearing for a radical theory of emotional
>disorder serves as a backdrop for my all out assault on the cognitive 
>science paradigm. Topics include the philosophy of science (paradigm 
>conflict), the philosophy of psychology (introspection, Nisbett and 
>Wilson), emotional disorder, rationality, free will, artificial 
>intelligence (computationalism, Lucas/Godel), and evolution (kin 
>selection, sociobiology). Comment form included and comments heartily 
>welcomed, even if only to disagree.
>
>web page http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476

I think that the main thing to be drawn from all of this is that referee's
comments should not be included in rejection letters.

There was a similar case (but not in regard to referees) regarding the C
language standard.  A fellow had submitted comments during the public review,
but due to a committee error he did not get a response, as was required by
ANSI rules.  He insisted that the response be provided, thus delaying
acceptance of the standard, and then created further delays when his
suggestions were not adopted.  His comments were amateurish and did not
reflect the five years of formal procedure and exchange that had gone into the
development of the standard, but he was too arrogant to see this as anything
but a "paradigmatic" conspiracy.  For every Wegener there are a thousand
Velikovskys.  Complaints about paradigms are not sufficient.
--