name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote
in news:cnaq3s$2l83$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
> news:... 
>> name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
>> wrote 


> 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.
> 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.
> 
>> > 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. 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.

Actually sbe does provide peer review - it just provides it after 
publishing instead of before publishing. Both Jim McGinn and John Edser 
have had ample opportunity to convince  others on this newsgroup that 
Hamilton was incorrect, and the consensus result of the peer review is 
that they are both wrong and Hamilton is right. 

To those who may not be familiar with the history, Jim and John have 
stimulated much interesting discussion on the newsgroup, and it has been 
acknowledged that there is still much to learn about the implications of 
Hamilton's rule  and to what extent it actually applies in real 
populations. My point is that both have had ample opportunity to convince 
others of the validity of their arguments  in a post-publishing-peer-
reviewed instead of a pre-publishing-peer-reviewed setting. Neither has 
been successful. That doesn't mean that Jim and John are wrong - that is 
for the reader to decide - but it does mean that they have had plenty of 
opportunity for making their views known.  So blaming the continued 
acceptance of Hamilton's rule on some fault in the peer-review process is 
clearly a red herring. Hamilton's rule is accepted because the majority 
of scientists who have taken a hard look at it think it has some 
validity.

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 11/17/04 9:38:23 AM