name_and_address_supplied{at}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.

> 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.  

> 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.

> 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.

Jim
---
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 5:55:43 AM