"John Edser"  wrote 

> > 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. 

John, I think you see the classic (paper-based) peer-review 
journals as some kind of panacea.  I don't.  As far as I'm 
concerned these journals are an ineffective medium when 
dealing with the complexity and obscurity of evolutionary 
thinking.  Unfortunately the net effect of this process 
over the last 50 years is to have achieved little more 
than to provide the different contributors an excuse for 
talking past each other.  (Keep in mind that it is the 
peer-review process that first accepted [or just turned 
their heads] Hamilton's nonsense.)

> 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 suppose.  

 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.

AFAIC, it's not necessary to refute something the 
validity of which as never been demonstrated.  

 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 11/18/04 7:39:03 AM