| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Re: Publishing scientific |
Jim McGinn wrote:-
> > NAS:-
> > 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.
> JMcG:-
> I've already said what I have to say.
> Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
JE:-
These differences could be cleared up
if more formal publications were to be
reviewed within sbe. Either we are "trashers
of Hamilton's Rule" OR Hamilton's rule is
just trash. This proposition is entirely
rational because it can be tested to
refutation simply because these predictions
remain self exclusive.
Jim and I differ in basics as to why Hamilton's
reasoning remains in error. What I would
like to ask Jim is, does he support
a 100% _transparent_ and _democratic_
peer review process being attempted within
sbe for the electronic publication of
sbe peer reviewed papers? I would
welcome any paper being submitted to
such a process by Jim and hopefully many
others here. My argument remains: there is
nothing for SCIENCE to lose but everything
for science to gain by evolving sbe to another,
_optional_ level of publication. It is also rather
obvious that NAS and many others here that do
not support sbe peer reviewed papers, feel they
have everything to lose and nothing to gain
if this process became a reality. This is
because they now suffer the risk that
it may be more FORMALLY proven that their
interpretation of the rule has been incorrect
for over 50 years. Short term self interest
predicts that NAS et al will move heaven and
earth to stop sbe reviewed papers becoming
a reality to reduce this risk to themselves.
I predict this will remain the case even
after it is carefully explained to them
that when science loses WE ALL LOSE. The
irony is, Hamilton's logic suffers from
exactly the same irrational syndrome: a
relative gain for just an absolute loss.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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
* Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 5030/786 @PATH: 278/230 10/345 106/1 2000 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.