Re: Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane's Dilemma

On Apr 17, 1:58 pm, "jessica.lover...@xxxxxxxxx"
<jessica.lover...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In addition, if you re-create the simulation and get different
results, you shoulde very well be able to publish those results in a
peer-reviewed journal, provided your methos is robust and without
flaw.

The robust requirement is a little biased against ReMine. After
all, Nunney's model may not be robust. Nunney could have run it under
very specific initial conditions that support Nunney's general
conclusions. ReMine's issue appears to be that he doesn't think that
Nunney's general conclusions are correct. If that is true, ReMine and
supporters have several options that would probably be acceptable to
the mainstream science community. For me as a peer reviewing scientist
(different field), the following would be the best option.
What ReMine should do is write his own program (or get someone
else to do so), based fully on the assumptions stated in Nunney's
model. Then, the program should be run for different conditions to
show that Nunney's model was not robust. ReMine should show the
conditions under which Nunney's model doesn't support Nunney's general
conclusions. He can then write a paper showing that the Hamilton
Dillemma is a real problem, at least for some of the conditions that
ReMine tested.
The paper doesn't even have to target Nunney specifically. I
suggest that the paper has a better chance of getting through the peer
process if it doesn't. Most peer reviewers would be biased against a
direct statement that Nunney didn't know how to program a computer. I
as a reviewer would pass sneaky little criticisms on Nunney's
methodology, as long as the emphasis they were phrased as a criticism
on the methodology. I have a secret admiration for catty that most of
my fellow scientists don't share. However, if he ReMine did the job
correctly no such direct criticisms would be necessary. Nunney's
calculations would no longer be relevant to ReMines position, and
ReMine would have the professional right to say that.


.