Re: Jason's Dilemma


Jim McGinn wrote:
> JAE wrote:

> <snip>
>
> > Which brings up your question in a round-about way.
> > If they never published their theories, right or
> > wrong, they would not have contributed to science.
>
> This wasn't the question I asked, Marc, . . . uh,
> I mean, Jason.

Right yeah, you really got me confused with Marc. I give that less
credibility than the tooth fairy.

Your question was this:
"...if Darwin's, Newton's, Gallileo's and Einstein's theories were
never published in peer reviewed journals would they be any less valid?


I answered it. My answer remains the same. It's moot. If they hadn't
published they would not have contributed to science. A privately held
theory is meaningless because it doesn't contribute to a larger body of
knowledge. It's really not in a position to ascend to theory where it
helps anything out because all by one's lonesome, it's damn close to
impossible to put something through the rigors necessary to be theory.
Theory is part of the groundwork for additional research. Kept
private, it can't function and in this sense, it's not as valid as if
it's published and public and part of the larger scientific and world
community. Now perhaps in your scary little private world you live
under the illusion that you can figure it all out on your own and it's
meaningless to share information and whether or not you publish and
attempt to make a contribution doesn't matter. In your scary little
world perhaps you believe you can figure it all out all by your self
and as such, your peculiar little definitions aren't an impediment, but
back here on planet earth, that doesn't matter. Right or wrong you're
wholly irrelevent if you don't publish.

For a "world class evolutionary theorist" who "rules the roost" on a
USENET newsgroup, you sure as hell don't seem to have enough confidence
in yourself, your reasoning, or your ability to convey your ideas in a
persuasive manner if you are going to forego publication.
Functionally, there's no difference between the kook who has a nutty
idea that comes out as gibberish and a genius who can't convey his
ideas in a persuasive enough manner as to convince others.
I realize that it's tough to pull out of your trademarked death spiral,
but put up or shut up, Jimmy.


> <snip>
>
> > You don't seem to publish elsewhere. Why is that?
>
> Well, this is a fair question. I think the answer to
> this question can be discerned from what I wrote above.
> You've demonstrated something that I've found is common
> to all anthropologists: an unwillingness to deal with
> the scientific content of thnking that does not confirm
> the current paradigm and a tendency to dismiss it based
> on any number of criteria (most of which is unknown to
> outsiders) which has no bearing at all on the scientific
> validity of its content.
>
> IOW, Jason, herein you've produced an incredibly lame
> excuse for pretending to ignore my hypothesis. If I was
> to concentrate my efforts to a journal (let's say JHE)
> I'd get similar lame excuses but the difference would be
> that these excuses would not be as public as they are
> here in this NG and so it would be more difficult to
> expose the purely political nature of of your responses.
>
> Thank you for your participation. (Try not to take any
> of this personally.)
>
> Jim

.