Their professorships sound impressive until you read the following text, which describes their unethical conduct as co-editors of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
A Problem and Its Solution. The philosophy of science (POS) has been my intellectual hobby ever since my PhD program. A college course titled “Epistemological Methodology” introduced me to the philosopher Karl Popper. I read several of his books. He expressed an indebtedness to Einstein; so I next read Einstein. Circa 2004 I bought Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 book titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Upon reading the following sentence, I knew that Kuhn’s book and POS were flawed:
No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature.1
I knew because Popper and Einstein describe theories as falsifiable. The problem for me then was to pinpoint exactly where Kuhn went astray.
Despite my best efforts, I could not get a firm grip on Kuhn’s "paradigm", which is the central concept in his book. Finally I thought, "If Kuhn is right that one cannot understand the evolution of physics without the notion of paradigm, then that notion must be in Einstein’s writings somewhere." So I began re-reading Einstein looking specifically for Kuhn’s notion of paradigm—but not for the word "paradigm", for in all of my readings of Einstein, I had not seen that word. I found the notion in Einstein’s 1927 paper titled The Mechanics of Newton and Their Influence on the Development of Theoretical Physics. Then I re-read Part 1 of Einstein and Infeld’s 1938 book titled The Evolution of Physics. When viewing their statement of "the mechanical view" in this new light, I finally understood Kuhn’s notion of paradigm. Returning to Kuhn’s book, I soon saw that he equated theory and paradigm, which caused him to say things about theories that apply only to paradigms. At that point, the problem was solved (the year was 2007).
Write Paper. I did nil with my solution for several months; I thought surely that others had seen what I saw. Finally, I decided not to assume the worst. I thought, Maybe no one has figured out what I have. Write the paper; submit it to a POS journal; if the problem already has been solved, they will tell me.
So in 2008, I wrote the paper, which reveals that Kuhn (1949 PhD in physics from Harvard University) did not understand (1) Einstein’s POS, (2) theories, (3) paradigms (the central concept in Kuhn’s book), (4) falsification, etc. Near the end of my paper, I say:
The notion of “paradigm” can peacefully co-exist with falsification (both help to explain the evolution of physics) despite Kuhn’s contention to the contrary. It’s truly amazing. Kuhn condemns falsification while stressing the need to study the history of science in order to understand science and its evolution; yet his analysis of the history of science fails to recognize that Einstein, the most famous physicist since Newton, was a falsificationist!
Kuhn's 1962 book has led many folks to believe that Kuhn introduced into the POS the notion of "paradigm" and the multi-step process by which paradigm B comes to replace its predecessor (paradigm A). Those folks are mistaken, for among the many things that my paper shows are these 2 items:
Those anticipations (one in 1927 by Einstein and one in 1938 by Einstein and Infeld) should make folks wonder whether Kuhn plagiarized Einstein and Infeld. Clearly, my paper is highly critical of Thomas Kuhn's POS and his 1962 book!
Submit Paper. In 2009, I submitted that paper to the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Its co-editors then were Alexander Bird and James Ladyman. Here is a copy of the rejection letter they sent me:
The Fundamental Issue. In 2017, I learned that Mr. Bird’s book titled Thomas Kuhn debuted in 2000. That his book is pro-Kuhn is clear from the book's preface, which is available by clicking here. Mr. Bird surely wants to see his pro-Kuhn book sell. The more copies of it that sell, the better it is from Bird's point of view, especially if he gets a royalty on the book's sales, which he probably does; so he was not a neutral judge re my paper's publication. In 2009, Mr. Bird's book had been on the market 9 years; so surely Mr. Ladyman knew of Bird's pro-Kuhn book and Bird's authorship of it. Therefore, both men should have recused themselves from all roles involving my paper’s publication, but they didn't, as their rejection letter proves. That failure to recuse themselves is the fundamental issue involving my paper, and it's the reason for this section of my website!
Before receiving their rejection letter I knew nil of Bird and Ladyman, and I've had no further dealings with either man.
Developments
I’ve written 5 books: one on writing; one on Einstein; two on education and its management; and one on religion. One of the education book’s Chapter 6 is titled "Peer-Reviewed Academic Journals". That chapter recommends the abolition of pre-publication peer review. Among the reasons are the peer-review failures that occur all too often. My experience with Bird and Ladyman is one such failure. That Chapter 6 and this section of my website describe my lousy experience with Bird and Ladyman. That Chapter 6 ends with “An Appendix re Alexander Bird and James Ladyman”. It says:
Table 6-6 supra (that table is in the book--not in this website) shows me receiving on 5-20-2009 Alexander Bird and James Ladyman’s letter rejecting (without stating a reason!) my Kuhn paper. That rejection letter introduced me to Bird and Ladyman. Not until 2017 did I learn of Mr. Bird’s book titled “Thomas Kuhn”, which was published in 2000. Upon reading that book’s pro-Kuhn stance, I said to myself, “There’s the reason they rejected my Kuhn paper! They were hoping that no one ever would read it, for my paper is highly critical of Thomas Kuhn!” I then was busy writing books, and I needed no distraction; so I did nil then about their unethical conduct. The book writing is winding down, and the time has come for me to address the Bird and Ladyman issue.
Bird and Ladyman lied to me! By not recusing themselves, they tacitly said, “We are unbiased judges of your paper.” In reality, they were the exact opposite! The following table is from the aforesaid Chapter 6:
| Table 6-10 The Letter That Alexander Bird Should Have Sent Me Upon Reading My Kuhn Paper |
|---|
|
Dear Mr. Bailey: In the year 2000, my book titled “Thomas Kuhn" was published. My book is pro-Kuhn; your paper is anti-Kuhn. You might as well have titled your paper, “Thomas Kuhn Was Dead Wrong re Theories, Paradigms, and Falsification.” Mr. Ladyman and I cannot in good conscience evaluate your paper; so we’re recusing ourselves from all roles re your paper’s publication. We advise you to submit your paper to a different journal from the one we co-edit. That way you hopefully will get an unbiased evaluation of your work. Sincerely, Alexander Bird |
Unfortunately, I got no such letter from Mr. Bird; instead I got a rejection letter! In February of 2022, I notified the universities that now employ Bird and Ladyman of their unethical conduct re my Kuhn paper. After several letters from me to both universities, I finally received a letter from each school. Tables 6-11 and 6-12 infra contain their letters to me.
| Table 6-11. Full Text of The University of Bristol's Letter to Me |
|---|
| Dear Dr Bailey:
The Vice-Chancellor has asked me, as Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Enterprise, to reply to your recent emails. I understand that you submitted a paper that was critical of the work of Thomas Kuhn to the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (BJPS) in 2009. At the time, Professors James Ladyman and Alexander Bird were Co-Editors in Chief, both based at the University of Bristol. Your paper was not accepted for publication, and you received a brief rejection letter. In 2017, you learned that Professor Bird had published a book seventeen years earlier in 2000, which you describe as 'pro-Kuhn'. You now believe that your paper was rejected for reasons of conflict of interest and have publicly accused both Professor Bird and Professor Ladyman of unethical conduct on your website www.billbaileyphd.com. You provide no explanation for your long delay in making these allegations. As you are aware, Professor Bird is no longer at the University. Both he and Professor Ladyman ceased to be Co-Editors of BJPS in 2010. It is doubtful whether any records remain of your submission to the journal thirteen years ago or of the reasons why your paper was rejected and after this length of time, memories will inevitably have faded. The unexplained delay of five years between your discovery of Professor Bird's book and your complaint to the University only adds to the difficulty and my view is that it would not now be possible to carry out a fair investigation. I do not therefore intend to take any action in relation to your complaint. You may wish to remove these allegations from your website as they are potentially defamatory. I am sorry that this response will be disappointing to you. I do not propose to engage in any further correspondence on this matter. Kind regards Phil Taylor |
| Table 6-12. Full Text of The University of Cambridge's Letter to Me |
|---|
Dear Dr Bailey, I am writing regarding the concerns that you have raised with the Vice-Chancellor regarding Professor Alexander Bird. This matter was passed to me in my role as Research Integrity Officer for handling according to University of Cambridge procedure. I note that your concerns relate to matters that took place while Professor Bird was employed by the University of Bristol and that your website states that your concerns have already been considered there and that they do not intend to take any action. Given that Professor Bird is a current employee of the University of Cambridge, I referred your concerns to the relevant responsible person for consideration under University policy. They have reviewed your correspondence and website and have concluded that the allegations made are not justified and therefore we do not intend to take any further action. Kind regards, Dr Rhys Morgan |
The issue I have raised is simple. It is: (1) Is my Kuhn paper anti-Kuhn? Answer: Yes. (2) Is Bird's Kuhn book pro-Kuhn? Answer: Yes. Given those 2 answers, should Bird and Ladyman have recused themselves from all roles re my paper's publication? Answer: Yes. Did they? No. Case closed! The time factor is irrelevant!
If Phil Taylor and Rhys Morgan cannot tell from this site's first 2 sections (they being "A Problem and Its Solution" and "Write Paper") that my Kuhn paper is anti-Kuhn, then they must be brain dead!
I offered to send to both universities my Kuhn paper. Neither school asked to see it! Not only does the paper still exist, it's now a chapter in my Einstein book. The chapter is titled "Thomas Kuhn Was Dead Wrong re Theories, Paradigms, and Falsification". The paper's title in 2009 was "Theories, Paradigms, and Falsificationism". The new title describes perfectly the paper's content while making my position on Thomas Kuhn crystal clear. Despite Kuhn's 1949 PhD in physics from Harvard University, Kuhn did not understand Einstein's philosophy of science. If you doubt me, then buy a copy of my Einstein book and read its Chapter 39 (aka "my Kuhn paper")!
When a scholarly journal's editor rejects a paper, should he/she tell the paper's author the reason(s) for the rejection? Yes! Does the rejection letter that Bird and Ladyman sent me state a reason for their rejection of my Kuhn paper? No, and the reason is clear. They could not tell me the real reason, which was Bird's pro-Kuhn book; so they worded their rejection letter to make it sound like they sent my paper to referees who gave no reason for recommending the paper's rejection! It's gross incompetence for an editor to reject a scholarly paper without telling the paper's author the reason(s) for the rejection! And if a referee ever recommends a paper's rejection without giving at least one reason for that recommendation, then the editor should say to the referee, "Either give me your reason(s) for recommending the paper's rejection or withdraw as a referee!" For the editor(s) to do otherwise is pure incompetence!
Rhys Morgan’s letter to me says that his school’s “relevant officials have reviewed your correspondence and website and have concluded that the allegations made are not justified and therefore we do not intend to take any further action.” How can they possibly conclude that my allegations are not justified without first reading my Kuhn paper? Answer: They can’t, and neither school has said that its “relevant officials” have read my paper! Neither my correspondence to them nor my website contains my Kuhn paper, but I offered to send it to them! Neither school requested it. They are just trying to hide the fact that one of their faculty members (one at each school) behaved unethically! To them I say, “It ain’t gonna work!" I’m going to do everything within my power to see to it that Bird and Ladyman’s unethical conduct is revealed to everyone. For 5 years (2022 – 2017) I’ve thought about the injustice I suffered in 2009. The time has come for me to reveal to their schools and others the sort of persons that Messrs. Bird and Ladyman are, and now I can reveal the crummy managements those schools have. Neither school has shown any genuine interest in determining whether my allegations are true! I wonder how many other persons Bird and Ladyman have screwed when it comes to reviewing their paper. That I’m the only one is unlikely, and neither school’s management seems to care! That’s university management for you! They just want to conceal their colleague's unethical conduct! But as I said, “Their attempt to conceal it ‘ain’t gonna work!’ ” I care too much about education and its management to let it be hidden and forgotten!
Which is worse, being unethical (as Bird and Ladyman are) or trying to cover up their disgusting conduct (as Rhys Morgan and Philip Taylor have tried to do)? In my opinion, all 4 men are equally odious assholes! Their unethical conduct would not have surprised the late Robert B. Parker, PhD. Despite being a tenured, full professor at Northeastern University, Parker quit academe. He later uttered Table 6-13’s text.
| Table 6-13 Robert B. Parker, PhD Assesses University Professors |
|---|
| “I’d been in the infantry in Korea and met some pretty bad people, but many, maybe most, of the people I met in university life were the worst people I’d ever met. […] Now and then you find a really good person in academia, but not often enough” (48, 88).2 |
Sources
1. Kuhn, T. S. 1996 (first published in 1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. ed. 3. Chicago, Il: Univ. of Chicago Press. Page 77.
2. Kaminsky, S. 2005. Behind the Mystery: Top Mystery Writers Interviewed. Cohasset, MA: Hot House Press. Page 88.