H.C.M. de Swart breaches integrity of science

Historians of science study the genesis and development of ideas, e.g. the interaction between scientists via the letters between authors. Van Ulsen (2001:1) reports:

“Beth operated at the difficult boundary of disciplines. Philosophers denounced him as mathematician and logician, while the mathematicians and logicians regarded him, neither in a positive sense, as a philosopher.”

My documentation w.r.t. my own results serves this purpose as well. When I protest against maltreatment of my work then this does not imply that I lack good judgement or would be impolite.

On February 18 & 19 prof. dr. H.C.M. (Harrie) de Swart (EUR) (wiki) (born 1944, age 71) blocked my attendance at some colloquia on the history of science, first with the argument that these would be a “closed shop”, subsequently, when this was shown to be untrue, with refusing to give any kind of argument. This amounts to a breach of the integrity of science. The following is a summary of the case. The email exchanges with a discussion in English are here: part 1 with De Swart and part 2 with prof. dr. F.A. (Fred) Muller, the project manager.

NWO projects 2012-2017 on Mannoury, Beth, Heyting and Van Dantzig

There are (1) a NWO-project 360-20-301 running in 2012-2016 on Mannoury and philosophy of language and (2) a NWO-project 360-20-300 running in 2012-2017 on Mannoury, Beth, Heyting and Van Dantzig, with a budget of 617,000 euros.

I have an interest in these authors since my student days around 1977. I referred to Heyting in my book “A logic of exceptions” (1981 unpublished, 2007, 2011), Mannoury & Van Dantzig in 2012 (referring to a study by Gerard Alberts), and referred to Mannoury and his students Van Hiele and De Groot on my weblog in 2015. This is a draft paper of February 18 2016 on Mannoury & Van Hiele concerning the overlap of ideas that can be found in their work. (Historians would have to check whether Mannoury and Van Hiele stayed in touch after university.)

I discovered the NWO-projects around New Year 2016. The projects mention manager prof.dr. F.A. Muller and researchers PhD-student Mireille Kirkels (Mannoury), dr. Paul van Ulsen (Beth & Heyting) and dr. Gerard Alberts (Van Dantzig). For my current focus Kirkels and Van Ulsen are the relevant contact persons. They wrote that I was welcome to attend (Kirkels January 11 and Van Ulsen January 13 2016).

I do not know what the official position of De Swart is with respect this NWO-project, other than that he apparently manages an email list for the colloquia. I actually was a bit surprised to see his involvement since the project summary did not mention him.

The breach by De Swart on February 18 & 19 2016

On February 19 2016 there was a colloquium for this project. On Februari 18 2016, perhaps not coincidentally just the day before, De Swart blocked my attendance for all of these colloquia.

  • His first motivation was that the colloquia were a “closed shop”.
  • When I showed De Swart the email by Van Ulsen (preferring the accomplished PhD above the PhD-student) and stated the inference that there is no “closed shop”, whence his statement was untrue, De Swart replied that I was not welcome, refusing to give me a motivation.

This is a breach of scientific integrity. It blocks the flow of information. A colloquium is not organised for nought. De Swart implicitly slanders to others as if there would be cause to block my attendance. There is a legal distinction between “not welcome” and “forbidden”, but this does not apply here scientifically given De Swart’s original reference to “closed shop”.

I informed De Swart of these implications, but he did not remit. I decided not to attend, if only to protect myself from further abuse. Perhaps De Swart has given a motivation to others (but not to me). If participants have information on this, it should be forwarded to me since it concerns my position.

An educated guess what might have motivated De Swart to breach science

Given the lack of stated motivation, one can only guess about it. The event however must be explained to others.

It is likely relevant to mention an earlier case when De Swart maltreated my work, namely in 2001 on the subject of social welfare and voting theory. I protest against this maltreatment in 2001, see the documentation on my website. This issue is not resolved yet.

  • I do not know of a public statement by De Swart that replies to my protest.
  • I do not know about a public statement on content by De Swart concerning my book “Voting Theory for Democracy” (VTFD) (2001, 2004, 2011, 2014) (stable text, different versions of Mathematica). I would applaud it when he would finally find time to study VTFD, and state explicitly whether or not he sees some of his misconceptions on social welfare and voting theory corrected.
  • My criticism doesn’t only apply to De Swart but also to the Dutch community of researchers on social welfare and voting theory, i.e. that they allow De Swart’s malconduct and do not protect me against it. They apparently also neglect VTFD and related work.
  • Dutch readers can benefit from my webpage that warns about mathematics about social choice and voting theory.
  • Dutch readers can also benefit from De Swart’s valedictorian speech for his departure from Tilburg in 2010: speech, Volkskrant may 19, Volkskrant June 5. De Swart sins against science on (at least) two points.

(1) He gives a wrong summary of Arrow’s Theorem, suggesting that there would be proof that no voting scheme is ideal. VTFD explains that Arrow cannot tell us what is ideal, and that his words on rationality, consumer sovereignty and moral necessity do not fit his mathematics. De Swart’s scientifically proven false statement in Dutch is on page 10:

“Nu zijn er vele andere kiesmechanismen, maar geen van hen blijkt ideaal.”

(2) De Swart proposes that the electorate does much more work in the ballot box, e.g. by giving report card numbers (10 to 0) or scores (A to F) to parties, or by ranking political parties by order of preference. Perhaps the effort can be reduced by simply sorting physical logo’s of the parties, but still it is a significant job, given the empirical numbers of parties. De Swart refers to Balinski and Laraki, 2007, in which 2000 voters scored 12 presidential candidates with apparently relative ease. I have my doubts on this. De Swart may have his personal opinion, but it is not scientific to neglect another proposal that may be even better. De Swart obstructs current discussion about electoral reform by advocating impractical ways and closing his eyes for a practical approach towards improvement. Again he appears to be an abstract thinking mathematician without proper attention for empirical matters. My suggestion is that it not only suffices but may even be optimal when people have only one vote. The relevant point is that the professionals in Parliament use the more complex mechanisms. Thus voters form the weight that is attached to the party of their choice. The power of voters can be enhanced by having annual elections. Populism can be checked by having an Economic Supreme Court. Let Parliament investigate these options, so that politicians know what these options actually are. See the Dutch booklet “De Ontketende Kiezer“.

Harrie de Swart, valedictorian speech 2010 on voting

Harrie de Swart, valedictorian speech 2010 on voting

Political economy and social dynamics of having a grudge

It would not be rational when De Swart links this issue on voting since 2001 to my attendance at these colloquia for this NWO-project. However, he may not like that I protest.

My website documents what happens with my findings. This documentation cannot be construed as a grudge on my part (i.e. an emotion that interferes with good judgement). I politely greet De Swart and hope that he finds his way towards science. It would be slander w.r.t. me to suggest that I would confuse the topic of the NWO-project in 2016 with the issue on voting since 2001, and that I would not be able to respond in scientific and civilised manner when my work and person are abused.This present text is another example of a scientific and civilised response to abuse.

When De Swart does not provide decent motivation, breaches the integrity of science and implicitly slanders w.r.t. my person, then there arises an asymmetry. It would be slander to suggest that I would have a grudge against De Swart, yet it is not slander but an unavoidable hypothesis to explain events by that he might have a grudge w.r.t. this issue of voting since 2001.

Three strikes and you are out (wiki)

It would not be the first time that De Swart breaches rules of science.

  1. Thus on voting 2001, above.
  2. De Swart also is in error in 2008 advising the EU to use square root (Penrose) weights in voting, with neglect of the refutation by Andrew Gelman in 2007.
  3. De Swart is also in error in his management (not necessarily the content) in 2007-2008 of the thesis by M. Cabbolet. De Swart tried again in Eindhoven without telling that it had been rejected in Tilburg, only to be found out later on, see Fiers 2008 and Gerard ‘t Hooft 2014.
  4. Thus on colloquia on Mannoury in 2016, above.
Conclusion

The blockage of my attendance of these colloquia should be lifted. Independently, the breach by De Swart w.r.t. this attendance must be looked into. Resolution of the issue since 2001 w.r.t. voting is required as well. These issues should not be confused. However, De Swart’s breach in 2016 may help readers to grow aware that I had reason to protest in 2001 indeed, and to grow dismayed that the Dutch researchers on social welfare and voting did not resolve this over 15 years, and neither the censorship of science since 1990 for at least 25 years by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) (see the About page).

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: