Text 826, 104 rader
Skriven 2004-11-16 06:43:00 av Jim McGinn (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Publishing scientific
=================================


name_and_address_supplied@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
wrote

> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
> > 
> > Uh huh.
> > 
> > > Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> > > reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> > > slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> > > current social evolutionary thought.
> > 
> > You are avoiding the issue.
> 
> I'm done with that issue. I'm addressing this new issue, the subject
> of this newsgroup thread.
>  
> > > But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> > > in this field, are wrong.
> > 
> > This is comical.  Hamilton's arguement achieves nothing 
> > but to produce enough confusion that the "experts" cannot 
> > ever be shown to be wrong.  
> 
> Indeed, there is alot of confusion surrounding Hamilton's arguments,
> even among evolutionary biologists. This is because the arguments are
> of great interest to many people, and these people have generally not
> read Hamilton, yet spin off their interpretation of his arguments.

No, the reason there's a lot of confusion is because the arguments
don't make sense.  It's that simple.

> Naturally, there is going to be inconsistency. However, the social
> evolution theorists who actually deal directly with this theory are
> agreed as to what Hamilton's rule is, what it says, and that it is
> correct.

It's nonsense.  Anybody that tells you differently doesn't 
know what they are talking about.  

> 
> > > I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> > > against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
> > 
> > It's not the peer review process that is the problem its 
> > the fact that the peers have turned this from a scientific 
> > problem in which Hamilton's argument would have to be 
> > shown to be right into a political argument where it is 
> > only necessary for a hypothesis to create enough confusion 
> > that it can't be shown to be wrong.
> 
> Ah, but the very point of the primary, peer-reviewed, scientific
> literature is that you don't have to worry about any of this confusion
> - you can go straight to Hamilton's publications and see exactly what
> he says.

I have.  It's nonsense.  

 You can take that, and reason with it, regardless of what
> flawed interpretations of Hamilton's rule are flying around on the
> internet or whatever.
> 
> > > Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting a paper, and these are
> > > made available to the author. A while back I suggested that you
> > > prepare a manuscript and submit to Journal of Theoretical Biology,
> > > which seems most appropriate for such a work, and is where Hamilton
> > > published his classic 1964 papers. Did you pursue this at all? I'd be
> > > interested to hear about the results.
> > 
> > Well, if anybody were to do this it wouldn't be John it 
> > would be myself (for obvious reasons).  And my argument 
> > would not be that I could demonstrate that Hamilton is 
> > wrong (not that I haven't already done this) but that 
> > it's proponents cannot demonstrate it to be right.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot which of the trashers of Hamilton's Rule I made this
> suggestion to previously. It applies to both you and John. And it
> still applies, despite what you have just written. If you have
> something to say, say it in a manuscript, and submit it for peer
> review.

I've already said what I have to say.

Hamilton's rule is invalidated.  

Jim
---
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)