Re: Publishing scientific information
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 11/17/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Eusocials Misused"
- Previous message: Kevin M. Kirby: "Recovering Ancient DNA"
- Maybe in reply to: Tim Tyler: "Publishing scientific information"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:16:00 +0000 (UTC)
"Anon." <bob.ohara@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >> M:-
> >>The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is
> >>his take on
> >>Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it
> >>heard, because he
> >>is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
> > NAS:-
> > Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
> > because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
> > what a peer review process is for.
> BOH:-
> Whilst NAS is right, I do not think that all is lost for the amateur.
> As I see it, a non-specialist will face two issues. The first is that
> their ideas might be demostrably stupid (i.e. they are cranks).
JE:-
The term "crank" is just an in-group derogatory
term that has no place and absolutely no meaning
within a RATIONAL discussion. When it is used as
a political weapon it says more about the values
of the people and the group they represent than
it says about the person it is used against.
This argument never even occurs to biased individuals
who mostly always, employ such a term.
Even W.D. Hamilton was considered a crank towards the
end of his life. Letters by Hamilton to Science were
rejected by the journal, amid accusations by Hamilton
that the establishment were ranging against his theory
that AIDS was caused by a deficient polio vaccine
developed in Africa and allegedly forcibly
tested on a large number of Africans. Suddenly,
Hamilton was on the "outside" as a self protective
establishment closed ranks to protect their own
intellectual tribe. The net result may be that a
treatment for AIDS was delayed by such a group
selective act by an establishment peer review process.
It never occurs to any establishment that their
ideas may be "stupid" until its is too late.
This is because our psychology is mostly
tribally based where tribal protection is always the
first line of defence for individual protection within
a highly fitness mutualised species like our own. The
evolution of human culture has demonstrated time and
time again that powerful establishments get it wrong.
This also applies to the history of science. Most of
the major changes that have enabled science to
evolve to where it is today have been prompted one
way or another, by those outside of the square.
Darwin, Einstein and Mendel were all, outside of
the peer review square at the time they developed
and formulated their ideas. We can have
no idea about many others existed that were
forever lost to science. All we can show is that
man had to reinvent fire several times, i.e.
cultural evolution unlike organic evolution,
can evolve backwards.
When the mutationist
replaced the selectionists after the discovery
of the process of genetic mutation by Muller
more was lost than was gained by Mullers discovery!
The establishment was hopelessly wrong to substitute
mutation for selection within evolutionary theory.
Many years and millions of dollars of mostly public
money were just wasted finding this out because it
was always quite obvious that a random process cannot
produce evolution on its own, only variation. Today
exactly the same false logic is being repeated.
Now it is the turn of random genetic drift to replace
natural selection as causative to evolution. If the
established peer review process makes such a basic
error once then the process fails. However,
when it repeats exactly the same error the system
must stand condemned and be replaced as quickly
as possible.
> BOH:-
> The
> second is that they do not know how to write a scientific paper in a way
> that is acceptable. There are conventions that are observed (such as
> the Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion structure), which are
> considered important. It would be unfortunate if a paper were rejected
> because it did not conform to this standard. However, all is not lost.
> There are several books about scientific writing, so I would advise
> that these are consulted.
JE:-
I agree a BASIC format should exist. That does _not_ present
a problem.
> BOH
> I suspect that a manuscript with a good idea from a non-specialist might
> be treated with some sympathy if it was clear that the author had tried
> to get the format right. Of course, if the ideas are nuts, then no
> amount of skill in writing will help: you just have to make sure you
> have the right co-authors (e.g. W.D. Hamilton would be a good one to
> try. You just have to get his address right).
JE:-
What is "nuts" can be more about in-group
expectation than anything else. It was
"nuts" for Einstein to suggest that mass
increased with velocity and time
dilation really existed just as it still
remains "nuts" for evolution to replace divine
creation for the majority of people. When the
inquisition was torturing and burning hapless
witches, it was "nuts" to question the authority
of the church on such basic matters. So it
goes for tribal conformity and protection.
An idea that is "nuts" can present
a VALID point of refutation for an existing idea.
Popper, who was a ex-communist learnt this from
bitter experience. This is why the process of
refutation is the only UNBIASED referee. If a
view is refutable then it's scientific but
if it is not, then it isn't.
Since Dr O'Hara is freely employing the concept
of nutty ideas to just others, lets make this a
_self consistent_ exercise and apply it to Dr O'Hara.
The good Dr has proposed that I was deleting all
random processes from within a natural population.
Such a view is about as "nutty" as you can get.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to delete ANY random process
from ANY natural population. Now imagine that
Dr O'Hara et al are involved in a peer review.
Now the nutty ideas are in danger of becoming
cemented dogma while the truth remains shut out.
Using of such a group selected effect, the evolution
of science may become halted providing a relative
gain for O'Hara et al but just an absolute loss to
science. Since Dr O'Hara makes a living from
science an absolute loss to science is also
an absolute loss for Dr O'Hara. Relatives gains
producing absolute losses ARE NOT RATIONAL. Yet,
as Dr O'Hara well knows, because Hamilton's Rule
remains 100% relative without the total fitness of
the actor included within it, the rule cannot
differentiate between fitness altruism and
fitness mutualism. But this is ALL the rule
has ever been employed to do.
Here is a telling answer to a critical question
I asked a way back which proves that altruism cannot
be distinguished from mutualism (its contradictory
opposite) within Hamilton rule. The use of Hamilton's
rule as an accounting device to measure when
altruism can evolve constitutes THE classic
example of a misuse of an over-simplified model.
In Hamilton's rule the sign of c is the ONLY
way the rule can measure a difference between
altruism (organism fitness altruism) and
mutualism (organism fitness mutualism) where
mutualism is NOT altruistic.
------------------- quote -------------------
JE:-
What is the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c?
If c was an abolute measure of fitness
then yes, a real difference exists. However
c is only a relative fitness cost and not
an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
difference?
BOH:-
As far as the rule is concerned, none.
---------------------------------------------
I have _repeatedly_ asked every Neo Darwinist
that posts here this question, including NAS.
None have ever provided an answer except Dr
O'Hara. However he still refuses to agree that
his answer provides _proof_ of the misuse of
Hamilton's rule. Such enormously
high levels of evasion is itself an objective
observation that can validly be incorporated
into a testable theory of why such a high level
denial exists within gene centric Neo Darwinism.
My Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: John Edser: "Eusocials Misused"
- Previous message: Kevin M. Kirby: "Recovering Ancient DNA"
- Maybe in reply to: Tim Tyler: "Publishing scientific information"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
