"Malcolm" 

>M:-
> Though Patrick Matthew developed the theory of evolution by natural
> selection (On Naval Timber and Aboriculture, Matthew, 1831) a good time
> before Darwin. Most students doing biology degrees have heard of him in
> passing, but the name is not familiar to the general public.

JE:-
Adam Smith the famous economist, is also a credible
publisher of natural selection operating within the 
market place via his famous "invisible hand" concept.
However, please note that just the principle of natural 
selection is NOT the same thing as a refutable theory of 
evolution via natural selection. Only Darwin and Wallace 
provided _testable theories_ for biological science.
It is very important to discriminate between just a
principle of natural selection and a testable theory
that includes that principle. It is also important
not to confuse a theory with just a simplified model 
of that theory.

> M:-
> Peer reviewing is a return to the idea of arguing from authority. 
> As a rule,
> authority is right. Unfortunately, in the US lawyers have begun to allow
> educators to exclude creationism from schools on the grounds that 
> it is not
> scientific, because they cannot get their works published in the
> peer-reviewed literature.

JE:-
The only reason this has happened is because
Neo Darwinism is predominately Post Modern
in its epistemology. This epistemology attempts to
suggest that _everything_ is relative. Only
the Popperian process of refutation can 
protect science against utter Post Modern 
nonsense.

Within population genetics gene frequency TOTALS
(a total is not relative to anything it just
represents and absolute assumption) cannot exist.
Please refer to posts by Dr O'Hara and
Dr Hoelzer that points out the known fact that 
the most basic term of population genetics 
"frequency" as in "gene frequency", can only
measure a proportion (a comparison between
a minimum of two totals) and _not_ ONE total.
Note that just knowing a comparative result 
does NOT allow anybody to deduce what these
comapred totals were. The net result
is that all population genetics
fitness measures remain 100% relative to 
just an  UNKNOWN total fitness. Hamilton's 
rule is likewise 100% relative in what
it can measure so it cannot measure the
difference between an altruistic give away 
and a mutually selfish  investment, i.e. 
between a debit and a credit for the actor
putting Hamilton et al in the same league as
discredited Enron accountants.

Dr Hoelzer remains on record as suggesting
that Popperian refutation only represents a
"tyranny" so it is better to throw it out,
which he has. Such an undesirable action has
allowed the invasion of classrooms with
a non refutable bigotry called "creation
science". Neo Darwinists are responsible
and not the "creation scientists" because
the Neo Darwinists represent the supposed
professionals. All that has happened is 
one bigotry is fighting another so the
Popperian referee has had to be shot.
I can only conclude we may be entering 
another dark age...

> M:-
> The economics of journals is all wrong. If you need to access the
> peer-reviewed literature you will know what a frustrating 
> experience it can
> be. Even if your institution has a licence to see the copies, instead of
> being freely published and cross-linked on the web (what the web was
> designed for) the information is locked away behind menu screens, 
> there is a
> huge amount of link chasing, and frequently at the end of the 
> chase the full
> text is not available. If people got into the habit of publishing 
> here then
> it would solve many problems, but then there would be no quality control
> (except from our esteemed moderator).

JE:-
I agree. Peer review journals HAVE ALREADY
BEEN PAID FOR BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC who are
required to pay for them, yet again, just to 
obtain access. Individual members of the
public do not get the large discounts offered
to most public and some private sector institutions.
These events are typical re: public
sector economics because over centralised
systems that "enjoy" reduced competition
can attempt to dictate to the market place.
The logic of such an event has been known to
evolutionary theorists for years: group selection.
Group selection must contest individual 
selection at every turn. The resulting war 
can reduce the absolute fitness of all 
protagonists, i.e. provide the hopeless
logic of a relative gain for an
absolute loss.

I have suggested that sbe should set up a system
to electronically publish sbe peer reviewed papers 
whereby an elected panel of active sbe posters would 
review submitted papers using ordinary sbe discussion.
The entire process would be transparent and open
for comment by anybody, but the panels decision
must remain final. I suggested that some places
on the sbe review panel should be reserved for
posters with the correct qualifications. I
think such an experiment would be of immense
value. At least the general public will
be put in a position to see how complex
any peer review process becomes. I strongly 
doubt that this suggestion will be taken up 
for the simple reason I have suggested it.

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 11/8/04 9:33:45 PM