I expect it’s not deliberate deception. However, I think it still does exhibit an indifference to the difference between industrial “scientists” and academic “scientists” — which is just one instance of a more general obtuse (I mean that in a literal, rather than rhetorical sense) idea of what is “science,” which is near the core of the problem here.

You’re right that what I’m pointing to in this post is not that significant. I think it is symptomatic, though, of something more significant, which I have not had time to write about yet. Just as a suggestion: Skell’s question hypothetically asked “would your research be different if Darwin was wrong?” Is that the right question? A good question? How about analyzing the extent to which their research depends on concepts derived from theoretical frameworks that depend on evolutionary theory?

I probably should not post like this when it is this late and I’m preparing for tomorrow’s class and I’ve been drinking to help me quickly get to sleep.

Thanks for your comment, though; I think your point is correct, but that there’s still more to the story.

Have they corrected it yet?