"Name And Address Supplied"
 wrote
>
> 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.
>
The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is his take on
Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard, because he
is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
>
> 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.
>
I tend not to participate in this debate, since I am not sure that I
understand the point that John is trying to make. As far as I understand it
Hamilton's theory is solid, until you allow recycling of benefits to other
relatives. However I am not sure this is biologically realistic (if I give a
hunk of meat to a hungry half sister, she is going to eat it, not pass some
of it on to her unrelated father).
Of course Hamilton's theory is current orthodoxy. If it wasn't there would
be no need for the crusade against it.
>
> But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
> Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting a paper, and these are
> made available to the author.
>
I can easily accept that the reviewer thinks, "OK this guy doesn't have an
academic post, and everyone knows that Hamilton was correct. Obviously a
kook theory and I won't waste much time on it." Then he compiles a list of
objections. The point is, you can compile a list of objections to anything,
including Darwin (read creationist literature) or Mendel (the statistics for
the peas are too good to be true, chi-squared always comes out at about 80 -
20 when 100 would be a perfect fit and 5 an incorrect rejection). So the
foundations of modern biology could have failed a peer review, had the
reviewer been so minded.
 >
> 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.
>
It was probably rejected in short order. What I find interesting is that
John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae system but with
himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary conditioning.
---
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 11/15/04 5:55:42 AM