Returning now to the latest postings in the colloquies on the
Picard BLP talk page, they are increasingly revealing now.
It is becoming apparent that the editors in the WikiProject on Intelligent Design are hell-bent on publishing as encyclopedic fact a rather dubious
theory of mind of a particular signer of the 2001 statement. But even if their haphazard theory of mind were accidentally correct, it would still be unpublishable since there is no clear evidence to support it. If anything, the evidence is that the subject of the bio is skeptical of
all theories, from Darwin to ID, inclusive. Which, as I understand the Scientific Method, is a healthy attitude to take. For any theory or belief, what is the evidence and reasoning upon which a given theory or belief rests?
I have co-authored several peer-reviewed papers with Picard, including one prize-winning conference paper that is highlighted on Picard's bio. I know from direct experience how intensely rigorous Picard is when it comes to reporting the results of scientific experiments and crafting scientific theories to explain the experimental observations at hand. Picard doesn't let any explanatory theory slip by without a rigorous examination of the evidence, and rigorous scientific reasoning to support it.
For example, in her 1997 text on Affective Computing, she includes a description of my work in studying the relationship between emotions and learning (
pp. 93-94). But she does not present the theory I had proposed because, in 1997, we had not yet carried out any rigorous scientific studies to properly ground the proposed theory. She doesn't even
mention in the book that we have a tentative theory. It wasn't until 2001 that we first published a conference paper
proposing the theory. That was the peer-reviewed publication that won the Best Paper Award at the International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2001).