name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)

> > 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.

> NAS:-
> Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> academic rigour that normally warrants this.

JE:-
NAS's conclusions re: myself are not only unwarranted they 
are childish. If he thinks that theoretical work does
not require dedication and hard work then NAS has no idea
about what he is talking about. Given such a high level of 
prejudice displayed by NAS et al who purport to be evolutionary
theory professionals and the level of evasion and indifference
shown by most of the other Neo Darwinists that post here,
it comes as no surprise to me and many others 
that Darwin left debate to others like Huxley
mostly concentrating on his own book and private 
research.  

The historical fact that Mendel could only be 
published in an obscure journal means an obscure sbe 
peer reviewed and electronically published journal 
has to be a good thing. Imagine how much the retardation 
of the biological sciences would have suffered if Mendel 
did not even have an obscure journal to publish his work!
As it stands, science had to wait for another generation. 
Typically, the dominant males have to die off before  
cultural change is allowed. This is why Darwinists can reason
death to be an adaptation within a highly fitness mutualised 
species like our own.

How many others who had something worthwhile to contribute
to scientific debate were locked out by today's non transparent
and non democratic peer review process? If this had not
been the case would we now have a cure for say, cancer?
The fact that Hamilton's original paper was rejected by
the peer review process and the admittance by NAS that
only confusion reigns among biologist re: what Hamilton's
ideas actually mean confirms the fact that 
epistemological confusion abounds within evolutionary 
theory concerning the _correct_ use of mathematical
models within a science of biology. I have attempted
to raise this thorny issue on many different occasions. It 
has always been evaded. Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper 
never even existed, something like the way Stalin acted as 
if Mendel had never existed. It seems clear to me 
that RN's point re: people have status positions to protect 
against "outsiders" who can only pose a threat to them, is 
correct. However, science does not have "outsiders", it only 
deals  in testable  ideas. The only outsiders that science 
allows are non testable ideas. Neo Darwinism in general and 
Hamilton in particular, remain non testable theories of nature. 
They can only be tested to non verification which is not
definitive. No wonder Neo Darwinists have decided to throw 
out Karl Popper. 

The peer review process is supposed to advance and not 
retard the evolution of the sciences. Instead, it 
appears it can be freely employed to advance the power and 
status of some group selected individuals against the
interests of other individuals and thus science in 
general.

My 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 11/16/04 6:43:05 AM