Re: Publishing scientific information
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/17/05
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Washburn's fallacy"
- Previous message: davidfranit: "Probability of a Birth Defect and Age of Female and Male Parents"
- Next in thread: Josh Hayes: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Reply: Josh Hayes: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:53:31 -0500 (EST)
Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants
> > > > > the kudos of a
> > > > > peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> > > > > academic rigour that normally warrants this.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > NAS's conclusions re: myself are not only unwarranted they
> > > > are childish. If he thinks that theoretical work does
> > > > not require dedication and hard work then NAS has no idea
> > > > about what he is talking about.
> > > NAS:-
> > > On the contrary, I think that *good* theoretical work does require
> > > dedication and hard work. And there is nothing in the peer review
> > > system which will present such good work being published. Especially
> > > when you submit to Journal of *Theoretical* Biology, as I suggested.
> > JE:-
> > The problem is to separate "good" from
> > just hopeless cultural group selection
> > within the present monopolistic peer
> > review process.
> NAS:-
> No John - when a reviewer rejects a paper, they have to give good
> reasons for doing so. How about you submit your manuscript, and see
> what the reviewer has to say first, before all this second-guessing
> pre-emptive conspiracy theory babbling. Say your manuscript is
> rejected - then post it, along with the reviewer's commments, online,
> out in the open, and we can all discuss it then.
JE:-
I am writing my own book. I consider Neo
Darwinist journals to be a waste of time.
I have already provided my answer. If I can convince
you that Hamilton's Rule remains a misused heuristic
fitness then I propose we develop a joint paper
for submission to any journal of your choosing,
developed within sbe public discussion so we can
benefit from continual and open criticism. My only
condition it that during the convincing
phrase all questions between us must be
answered using sbe discussion where
a maximum of say 6 questions can be put at any
one time. Deal or no deal?
> > JE:-
> > "Outsiders" have to make a rational appraisal
> > of the level of prejudice re: their subject
> > matter and their lack of qualifications that
> > "insiders" do not have to make.
> > I was advised by Dr Hoelzer that a
> > paper based on just a negative appraisal
> > of Hamilton's Rule would probably not be
> > accepted.
> NAS:-
> I strongly disagree that such a negative result, if it stood up
> logically, would fail to be published. The whole of science proceeds
> through knocking down inept hypotheses.
JE:-
What does: "if it stood up
logically, would fail to be published"
mean?
Just "knocking down inept hypotheses"
only constitutes intellectual thuggery.
Only refutation is ethical because it
remains:
1) Empirical
2) Unbiased
3) Forces a 100% sceptical
appraisal of any idea.
Any refuted idea always remains
a useful idea to the sciences.
> > JE:-
> > Therefore I am attempting
> > to put back the total fitness of the actor
> > into the rule.
> NAS:-
> Right, good for you - that can be your follow-up paper.
JE:-
It has to be the first paper IMO.
Anything else would only constitute
an unacceptable 100% negative paper.
> >E:-
> > I have previously attempted
> > to do so but I am not satisfied with these
> > attempts. Once again I stress that any attempt
> > of myself to repair the rule remains a separate
> > issue to error diagnosis within the rule.
> > In this discussion I am concentrating on
> > error diagnoses within the rule. However
> > the two remain inextricably linked.
> NAS:-
> If you are correct, and you have a valid (though nonconstructive)
> criticism of Hamilton's rule available, then i urge you to get it
> written up and submitted to a journal. This will at least force you to
> spell out your argument in unambiguous terms. And you never know, it
> might just get published. Your later 'fix' which, will provide an
> Edser's rule to replace the falled Hamilton's rule, can come later.
JE:-
I am open to discussion as to how anybody
here including yourself, would reincorporate
cmax within every operation of the rule.
So far it appears to me that cmax
can be validly incorporated when:
rb-c>m
where m is your deleted baseline
fitness. Since rb-c cannot be > m
because m is always larger, the rule
cannot operate.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Given such a high level of
> > > > prejudice displayed by NAS et al who purport to be evolutionary
> > > > theory professionals and the level of evasion and indifference
> > > > shown by most of the other Neo Darwinists that post here,
> > > > it comes as no surprise to me and many others
> > > > that Darwin left debate to others like Huxley
> > > > mostly concentrating on his own book and private
> > > > research.
> > > NAS
> > > Private research, which he then communicated eloquently to his peers.
> > JE:-
> > Yes, after 20 years. Wallace forced him
> > into print. I think if Darwin could have
> > had his way he would not have been published until
> > after his death. He had a dread of controversy
> > and guarded his privacy. He fully understood
> > the storm of controversy his theory would produce
> > via the high level of both ridicule and praise
> > he would now be subjected to.
> NAS:-
> Right, but you who is the champion of the interests of scientific
> progress, you should be acting otherwise, no? Get the ideas out there
> rather than sitting on them and occasionally burbling incoherently
> about them in a newsgroup.
JE:-
It is the other way around. If refutable
reasoning is labelled by yourself and almost
everybody else here as just "occasionally burbling
incoherently" without any supporting argument
than I condemn the lot of you as biased
and unreasonable. Since you lot run the
gene centric Neo Darwinistic side show,
you are welcome to keep it.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The historical fact that Mendel could only be
> > > > published in an obscure journal means an obscure sbe
> > > > peer reviewed and electronically published journal
> > > > has to be a good thing.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Did Mendel attempt to get published in a more appropriate,
> > > peer-reviewed journal?
> > JE:-
> > I do not know. I am sure somebody else here does.
> > I don' t think it matters. What matters is that
> > he was able to publish *somewhere*.
> NAS:-
> Right; and there is nothing to stop you publishing this as an advert
> in a newspaper, or finding a vanity press.
JE:-
T think sbe will do just fine, for now.
I enjoy picking over Neo Darwinistic
rubbish dumps. They are full of gold...
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Imagine how much the retardation
> > > > of the biological sciences would have suffered if Mendel
> > > > did not even have an obscure journal to publish his work!
> > > NAS:-
> > > Actually, his ideas were independently formulated by several other
> > > researchers, who only afterwards discovered his precedent. So I
> > > imagine the retardation of the biological sciences would have been
> > > close to nil.
> > JE:-
> > We may never know but I still argue
> > the more forums/journals that exist the
> > greater the chance that ground breaking
> > ideas like Mendel's may see the light of
> > day sooner rather than later.
> NAS:-
> Not necessarily - if you have actually tried to keep up with the ever
> expanding scientific literature, you will know that more journals
> aren't necessarily going to help.
JE:-
I agree when most of them are
just epistemological clones of
each other.
> > >snip<
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The fact that Hamilton's original paper was rejected by
> > > > the peer review process and the admittance by NAS that
> > > > only confusion reigns among biologist re: what Hamilton's
> > > > ideas actually mean confirms the fact that
> > > > epistemological confusion abounds within evolutionary
> > > > theory concerning the _correct_ use of mathematical
> > > > models within a science of biology. I have attempted
> > > > to raise this thorny issue on many different occasions. It
> > > > has always been evaded. Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper
> > > > never even existed, something like the way Stalin acted as
> > > > if Mendel had never existed. It seems clear to me
> > > > that RN's point re: people have status positions to protect
> > > > against "outsiders" who can only pose a threat to them, is
> > > > correct. However, science does not have "outsiders", it only
> > > > deals in testable ideas. The only outsiders that science
> > > > allows are non testable ideas. Neo Darwinism in general and
> > > > Hamilton in particular, remain non testable theories of nature.
> > > > They can only be tested to non verification which is not
> > > > definitive. No wonder Neo Darwinists have decided to throw
> > > > out Karl Popper.
> > > NAS:-
> > > John, I've read Popper, and I don't see how you are reaching this
> > > conclusion.
> > JE:-
> > Please list at least one point of refutation
> > for Hamilton's rule (as a single proposition).
> > Please do not make the error of providing
> > just a point of non verification or confuse
> > the rule with what it purports to be able
> > to measure.
> NAS:-
> I'm really not sure what you want me to do. It is a mathematically
> proven fact - what more needs to be done?
JE:-
I am stunned and amazed at your stupidity.
You claim to be a mathematician yet you
appear to have never read Godel. Do you
claim that mathematics is science?
Please answer this question.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > The peer review process is supposed to advance and not
> > > > retard the evolution of the sciences. Instead, it
> > > > appears it can be freely employed to advance the power and
> > > > status of some group selected individuals against the
> > > > interests of other individuals and thus science in
> > > > general.
> > > NAS:-
> > > Appearances can be deceptive. Especially when the observer is a crank,
> > > who wishes to escape their personal feelings of failure by fantasising
> > > about a monolithic corrupt and conspiring power structure which is out
> > > to get him.
> > JE:-
> > As I have previously mentioned, the use of
> > political terms like "crank" to attempt
> > to assassinate a competing idea has
> > absolutely no place within a
> > RATIONAL discussion. The use of this word
> > says more about the mental state of any
> > person who employs it than the person it
> > was directed against. Please read Popper
> > again. He makes a most important point
> > that any idea, no matter how outrageous or
> > unacceptable to any in-group, remains valid
> > if and only if it provides a point of refutation.
> > Conversely, any idea no matter how cherished
> > or established is NOT acceptable if it cannot
> > provide at least one point of refutation.
> > You don't require a PhD to understand such
> > a basic.
> NAS:-
> Get a grip - you are censoring yourself by not even trying to submit
> your ideas for publication, or putting them in a coherent form in any
> public forum. Lets wait for the shadowy men in darkened rooms to
> respond to your manuscript before ranting about the injustice, okay?
>
JE:-
"Get a grip?" The Neo Darwinian establishment is
run today by people like yourself who cannot tell
the difference between refutable science and non
refutable mathematics. In short, hopeless barbarians.
Mathematics can only be verified/non verified. It
requires propositions entirely outside of mathematics
just to make it work. You remain in the era of
Bertrand Russel who like yourself, incorrectly
argued that mathematics was and remains a
self consistent body of knowledge. It isn't.
The sciences _are_ self consistent because they
employ refutable absolute assumptions of nature.
In neo Darwinism these translate into finite fitness
totals like cmax (which remains entirely deleted from
Hamilton's Rule).
It does not matter one fig if absolute assumptions
are incorrect because you can empirically refute
them any time you choose to do so. Until you
tell me just the name of the refutable theory
Hamilton's non refutable model was oversimplified
from, you have nothing to offer the sciences.
However, I am sure the Neo Darwinist side show
will continue to employ you and Hamilton's
Rule as its main act, so why should you
worry?
>snip<
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Washburn's fallacy"
- Previous message: davidfranit: "Probability of a Birth Defect and Age of Female and Male Parents"
- Next in thread: Josh Hayes: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Reply: Josh Hayes: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Publishing scientific information"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
