Text 824, 87 rader
Skriven 2004-11-16 06:43:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Sbe Peer Reviewed Pap
=================================




Name And Address Supplied wrote:-

> > JE:-
> > It seems obvious to me that 
> > the professionals who regularly post here
> > investing their time and effort, are doing 
> > so because of their need to look outside 
> > of their own peer reviewed square.

> NAS:-
> Personally, I gain very little from this discussion group, which is
> why I tend to disappear when my workload demands that I make better
> use of my time. 

JE:-
This must be the reason why you suddenly stop 
answering critical questions as debate heats up...

Please answer the following 3 questions:

(1) How can you measure any difference
between OFA and OFM using Hamilton's rule
when the total fitness of the actor remains
deleted from the rule?

(2) Do you agree that totals, that represent
constant terms and therefore maximands must 
exist for any idea to be reasonable? 

(3) If you have no Maximand at all for Neo Darwinian
fitness (Neo Darwinians cannot even provide a
non refutable fitness maximand) by what right
have Neo Darwinists  deleted the existing 
refutable Darwinian maximand from within 
Hamilton's rule?

>snip<

> I may be wrong, but I suspect that most of the experts who post to
> this newsgroup are also motivated by 'Education' rather than
> 'Research'. 

JE:-
If you have ever been a teacher then you
must realise that learning requires an 
ongoing teaching experience for both 
teacher and student.

> NAS:-
> I also perceive no barrier to good ideas posed by the
> current peer review system. With both these points in mind, I don't
> see what a separate amateur peer review system is going to achieve. If
> the likes of John Edser desparately want to get their ideas in print,
> then they should, like legitimate researchers, submit these ideas to
> the existing peer review system; or else they can seek out a vanity
> publisher.

JE:-
The above does not constitute a rational case 
against a proposed _democratic_ and _transparent_
peer review process that I argue does not exist
at the moment but could be pioneered within sbe. 
Would NAS please outline A RATIONAL case against 
such an experiment. 

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

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 11/16/04 6:43:05 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)