Text 756, 165 rader
Skriven 2004-11-11 17:41:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Publishing scientific
=================================



"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> > JE:-
> > This circus is mostly due to the fact of artificially limited
> > competition.

> M:-
> The problem is, there is no competition. If you are an academic
> library, you
> have to subscribe to Nature. Two subscriptions to Science will not
> sustitute.

JE:-
Yes. Mostly, both libraries and the researchers
who compete for publication in journals like "Nature"
are funded by the public sector which  remains
overly conservative because, IMHO, the public sector is
group selective. This means publications can be excluded for
the benefit of a "peer group" at some hapless individual's
expense. Such individuals normally only occupy an "out group"
position so nobody really cares. This is the primitive
logic of tribalism. We inherited it and it remains with us.
The gross result is that more powerful individuals can employ
false group selective arguments to just unethically benefit
themselves (group selective arguments were just a ploy).
However, the net result is that everybody loses because
the evolution of science becomes retarded. As an extreme
example Lysenko's genetics was forced by Stalin to
be taught so that Mendelian genetics was excluded. The gross
result was that Stalin's lackeys obtained wealth and power
but people starved because the crops failed. I would
argue that over a lifetime they all lost, _absolutely_.

Unless benefits are totalled it becomes impossible
to identify just relative gains that cost an absolute
loss. Another example is the retardation of nuclear
physics under Hitler because he did not like racially
defined "Jewish" physics. This meant was that Hitler
failed  to develop nuclear weapons ahead of the allies.
The relative benefit that Hitler produced for himself
and the Nazi Party by employing the scapegoat of
racialism cost him a war, his own life as well as
massive mayhem and destruction for millions of others.
The relative gain was not worth the absolute cost. Nature
understands such BASIC logic but gene centric Neo Darwinians
have proven they do not understand/refuse to understand
it, allowing Hamilton's rule where no fitness totals
even exist. If the Peer review process had worked
correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
with many other misused oversimplified models.
One day these chickens will come home to roost and
people will be made accountable. Until that time
each one of us here must take responsibility for what
we have chosen to evade/write.


> > JE:-
> > Because most pure research remains publicly funded "peer review" can be
> > abused to reduce competition. Here more powerful individuals attempt to
> > maintain a higher status position against competition from lower status
> > individuals with better ideas by having these individuals and
> > their ideas
> > unethically censored.

> M:-
> Peer reviewing does several things. It keeps out kook theories,
> it keeps out
> competent but sub-average research, and of course it has the potential to
> keep out important new theories from outside. Historically,
> almost every big
> scientific breakthrough has been from people who were outside the formal
> hierarchy. However this doesn't mean that almost everyone from outside the
> hierarchy produces a big breakthrough.

JE:-
I am not against peer review. That is why I proposed
a peer review process for sbe electronically published
papers. I am against artificially restricting competition
for just a "peer group" benefit. Publishing sbe
reviewed papers, apart from providing an alternative
forum and thus expanding competition may enlighten
readers to the _complexity_ of the peer review process.
Mostly, the actual peer review process remains hidden
because IMO it mostly becomes a game of tribal politics.
I want a totally transparent peer review process.
This could be achieved by the author of the paper under
review remaining anonymous, the peer review process
being done online (here within ordinary sbe discussion)
and allowing both highly qualified specialists and
unqualified non specialist into any review
process. A more democratic and efficient system of
peer review is very badly needed!

> > JE:-
> > This is why I argue that an sbe peer review process to
> > electronically publish sbe papers would  be of immense value because it
> > would bring some of these problems out into the open as well as
> > supplying
> > a  reachablegoal for sbe subscribers and a higher grade of evolutionary
> > theory
> > information within sbe itself.

> M:-
> Any paper journal worth the name has more material submitted than it can
> publish. Peer review is one method for deciding how to choose the limited
> number of papers you will publish. To regard it as anything more
> than that,
> for instance as a benchmark of accuracy, is making the mistake of arguing
> from authority.
> An electronic journal doesn't have the same problem, so we need to develop
> different techniques for evaluating content.

JE:-
I agree. What I attempting to do via my
proposition for sbe peer reviewed papers
is pioneer by experiment such different
techniques.

My personal proposition would be that
only ideas that provide real points of
refutation be allowed to publish.
This could be softened to allowing ideas
that need to be reworked to refutability,
i.e. ideas that are not yet testable
to refutation being published so that
others may find out a way to refine them so
they could be so tested. Under no circumstances
do I agree that non refutable ideas should be
allowed to compete and win against refutable
ideas. Of course all of this would be up to
any properly constituted sbe
peer review board.

At the moment the awful FACT
that creation science is being forced
to be taught in some USA science classrooms
has to be challenged and NOT JUST IGNORED.
My argument remains that this travesty can
only be corrected when the process of
Popperian refutability is put back into
evolutionary theory. I find it disturbing
in the extreme that the Neo Darwinians that
post here refuse to discuss such basics.

My Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/11/04 5:41:39 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)