[moderator's note: I frown on meta-discussions, but I suppose this
is a useful perspective. Besides, Larry owns the computers from
which this ng is moderated, sooooo.....take it away, Larry! - JAH]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:20:48 +0000 (UTC), 
John Edser  wrote:
>Larry Moran wrote:

>> If what you say is true then population geneticists and evolutionary
>> biologists must be really, really, stupid to believe in random
>> genetic drift. Is that what you think? 
> 
>> When your conclusion is completely at odds with the scientific 
>> consensus, there are three main possibilities: 
>> 
>>   (1) you're on to something new and original that nobody has 
>>       ever thought of 
>>   (2) you've made a mistake or don't know enough about the subject 
>>   (3) you're a kook.
>> 
>> Which category do you see yourself in?
> 
> Lets be absolutely self consistent...
> Which category do you see _yourself_ in?

I put myself in category 2 whenever I find myself disagreeing with all 
the experts in a field. On a few rare occasions I've had illusions about 
being in category 1 but these illusions were quickly dispelled. I worry 
about being labelled a kook (category 3).

> There is no need to act in such a blatantly 
> arrogant way. This list is not just about specialists
> using their own jargon to talk among themselves it
> is mostly about specialists informing the general
> public, who quite rightly have many VALID questions
> to ask.

For the most part, the experts on sci.bio.evolution have done a good 
job of answering valid questions from non-experts. The main problem is 
that several of the non-experts just don't listen. For example, the 
experts have a good working definition of evolution at the population 
level. This is the definition they use in their debates and discussions 
about evolutionary theory. I know of at least one non-expert (you) who
insists on using his own idiosyncratic definition of evolution. I know
of another non-expert on sci.bio.evolution who refuses to listen when 
the experts explain the fundamentals of basic chemistry. This isn't the 
fault of the experts. 

> All you need to do is carefully and SIMPLY
> explain your position. Above all, explain how 
> an independent observer can test your view for
> themselves. Your arrogance and failure to partake
> in a simple thought experiment that can challenge
> the accepted dogma that random sampling error, alone,
> can be validly assumed to cause evolution and not 
> just temporal variation, puts into question your 
> integrity.

My position is that any change in the frequency of alleles within a 
population is an example of evolution. According to all the experts 
on population genetics such changes can occur by natural selection or 
by random genetic drift. I've looked at their models (= thought 
experiments) in the textbooks and in the scientific literature. I find
them very convincing. Furthermore, I've looked at the actual evidence 
of evolution by random genetic drift and found it convincing. This 
evidence consists of real testable experiments. There's also indirect 
evidence of the results of evolution in modern species. These results 
can only be reasonably explained by a stochastic process such as random 
genetic drift of neutral alleles.

One of the characteristics of kooks is that they are incredibly (even
obsessively) self-centered. They see themselves as beacons of light in 
a sea of darkness. In other words, kooks see themselves in category 1 
(above) when, in fact, they are in category 3. You can often recognize 
a kook because they accuse everyone else of arrogance. They often use 
terms such as "accepted dogma" to describe the point of view that they 
are challenging. The term "dogma" is supposed to convey the idea that 
the experts really don't have any evidence to support their position. 
According to the kooks, these experts just blindly follow each other 
because they're too stupid to think for themselves. This "dogmatic" view 
is made out to be a form of conspiracy that prevents the truth from being 
revealed. Of course, only the kooks know about revealed truth. 

One of the most obvious characteristics of newsgroup kooks is that they 
post a huge number of messages taking on everyone who questions the kook 
version of reality. If you look closely, you'll see that the kooks rarely 
deal with facts and evidence. Instead, they rely on "thought experiments", 
strange definitions of terms, and obscure theoretical and metaphysical 
arguments. 

Many kooks also have an obsession over some minor aspect of whatever it is 
they are attacking. Examples on this newsgroup include hydrogen bonds and 
Hamilton's equation. Some kooks have eccentric posting habits that don't 
conform to standard newsgroup etiquette. I assume this is related to their 
arrogance and their personal view of themselves as very special individuals
who don't need to conform.




Larry Moran
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/29/04 11:49:05 AM