John's New Venue
Jim McGinn
news:<cnftq3$1a54$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> Jim McGinn wrote:-
>
> > The immediacy of this electronic medium allows one to
> > get inside other people's heads in a manner that is
> > not possible in any kind of paper based medium,
> > peer-review based on not. My impression of the
> > journals--what few of them consider the theoretic
> > aspects of evolutionary biology to be worth
> > discussing--is that 99% of the time the respective
> > contributors talk past each other.
>
> JE:-
> I agree.
>
> > JMcG:-
> > They get away with
> > it because the medium, paper publishing, is so slow
> > and unwieldy. You can't get away with much on the
> > internet. On the internet when somebody's being
> > evasive or misleading they get called on it. Maybe
> > this is what these professionals find so threatening
> > about the internet.
>
> JE:-
> I agree. However I will argue that quick rapport
> discussion cannot replace properly constructed
> papers. What is needed is some close connection
> between these complimentary processes. This is why
> I argue sbe is well placed to electronically publish
> sbe peer reviewed papers. It seems like
> a worthwhile experiment for sbe to attempt.
John, eventually you're going to have to come to
terms with the fact that there are no problems with
your thinking/writing for which the solution is
wider circulation. The problems with your
evolutionary thinking/writing are the result of
shortcomings in your approach. They aren't going to
be solved by creating a new venue.
What's really ironic about all of this John is that
I don't think you fully comprehend that under the
constrainsts of peer-review you won't get away with
misusing other people's ideas (Darwin, Popper) the
way you've done so casually here.
Jim
John Edser
Jim McGinn wrote:-
> > > JMcG:-
> > > They get away with
> > > it because the medium, paper publishing, is so slow
> > > and unwieldy. You can't get away with much on the
> > > internet. On the internet when somebody's being
> > > evasive or misleading they get called on it. Maybe
> > > this is what these professionals find so threatening
> > > about the internet.
> > JE:-
> > I agree. However I will argue that quick rapport
> > discussion cannot replace properly constructed
> > papers. What is needed is some close connection
> > between these complimentary processes. This is why
> > I argue sbe is well placed to electronically publish
> > sbe peer reviewed papers. It seems like
> > a worthwhile experiment for sbe to attempt.
> JMcG:-
> snip<
> What's really ironic about all of this John is that
> I don't think you fully comprehend that under the
> constrainsts of peer-review you won't get away with
> misusing other people's ideas (Darwin, Popper) the
> way you've done so casually here.
JE;-
Please provide _evidence_ for the above
misrepresentation _forthwith_, or provide
an apology. My prediction is Jim will
provide neither proving his argument
to be utterly UNETHICAL
My Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Jim McGinn
John, when a peer-review panel asks you to provide
references when you, invariably, misrepresent other
people's thinking are you going to accuse them of
being unethical also?
Jim
John Edser
> > > JMcG:-
> > > snip<
> > > What's really ironic about all of this John is that
> > > I don't think you fully comprehend that under the
> > > constrainsts of peer-review you won't get away with
> > > misusing other people's ideas (Darwin, Popper) the
> > > way you've done so casually here.
> > JE;-
> > Please provide _evidence_ for the above
> > misrepresentation _forthwith_, or provide
> > an apology. My prediction is Jim will
> > provide neither proving his argument
> > to be utterly UNETHICAL
> JMcG:-
> John, when a peer-review panel asks you to provide
> references when you, invariably, misrepresent other
> people's thinking are you going to accuse them of
> being unethical also?
JE:-
At the moment you do not constitute
a "peer review panel". If and when you
do I may agree to comply. Ironically, it was my
proposition for sbe peer review (which you initially
agreed with but then just decided to ridicule as
"John's New Venue") that may have empowered you
to make such a request had you been democratically
elected to an sbe peer review panel. Not only
is your epistemology of what constitutes science
utterly dictatorial (your infinite number of
simultaneously selected levels of selection remains
utterly incomprehensible and therefore non testable
so it can only be dictated as a "truth") your ethics
are also dictatorial.
________________________________________
Getting back to the issue at hand:
Please provide any quotes proving that the
phase "tested to refutation" constituted
a misrepresentation of Karl Popper's
Epistemology or provide a public apology.
_________________________________________
As I originally predicted, you will
do neither because you have demonstrated
that you do not understand the basics
of Popper, Mendel or Darwin.
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> John, eventually you're going to have to come to
> terms with the fact that there are no problems with
> your thinking/writing for which the solution is
> wider circulation. The problems with your
> evolutionary thinking/writing are the result of
> shortcomings in your approach. They aren't going to
> be solved by creating a new venue.
>
> What's really ironic about all of this John is that
> I don't think you fully comprehend that under the
> constrainsts of peer-review you won't get away with
> misusing other people's ideas (Darwin, Popper) the
> way you've done so casually here.
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Once again, John, you've mananged to misrepresent
> somebody's thinking. In this instance I'm the
> victim. Normally your victims are Darwin, Mendel,
> and Popper.
..Newton, Einstein, Godel, Hardy & Weinberg, you name it.
McGinn is misconstruing the problem with Edser's posts.
If Edser's "approach" has "shortcomings", it presumably can be corrected
by getting another "approach"; if Edser is "misusing other people's
ideas", he can stop doing so and use them correctly; if Edser is
misrepresenting somebody's thinking, he can correct the problem by
representing it faithfully.
The problem is not some correctable failure of approach or use or
representation. It doesn't involve a voluntary act at all. The problem
is a chronic inability to understand what is written on the printed
page, and spontaneously to substitute some absurdly distorted creation
of imagination for the real underlying idea. Nothing is so easy to
understand that Edser cannot make a hash of it - Hardy-Weinberg
equilibrium, Hamilton's rule, Special Relativity, Set Theory, Godel's
theorem, the list is endless.
The idea that his "critique" of hamilton's rule is appropriate for
publication, as some have recommended, is absurd. I detect a certain
anticipation of schadenfreude in those who encourage him to submit a ms
to the Journal of Theoretical Biology. It won't happen anyway, since he
has apparently designated sbe as his one and only audience, even though
he appears never to have convinced anyone here of anything, except his
own irremediable obtuseness.
John Edser
ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:-
> The problem is not some correctable failure of approach or use or
> representation. It doesn't involve a voluntary act at all. The problem
> is a chronic inability to understand what is written on the printed
> page, and spontaneously to substitute some absurdly distorted creation
> of imagination for the real underlying idea. Nothing is so easy to
> understand that Edser cannot make a hash of it - Hardy-Weinberg
> equilibrium, Hamilton's rule, Special Relativity, Set Theory, Godel's
> theorem, the list is endless.
JE:-
Once again EK, like JMcG, remain happy to
denigrate without providing any argument
that proves their case. EK's argument that mass
is not a constant within Newtonian Mechanics
was just his (comical) argument that a rocket
reduces mass when it's fuel is burnt. Obviously
this debate is way over EK's head...
Here is something VERY specific for EK reply to:
Hamilton's Rule is logical but NOT rational.
This is because no constant term exists within the
rule which has been misused as a _stand alone_ fitness
accounting device for over 50 years. This missing constant
is the total fitness of the actor. It was deleted
by mathematicians (who are not scientists) who didn't
think it was important. This deletion reduced the rule to
just a 100% relative and thus non refutable, supposition.
This does not matter to mathematicians because they do not
have to represent anything real about nature but science
does. When the total fitness of the actor is replaced within
Hamilton's Rule only one condition allows organism
fitness altruism:-
rb-c > m ... (1)
Thus Hamilton's Rule remains in error by the enormous
amount m.
The condition (1) was deleted when the
total fitness of the actor was deleted via the process
of modelling oversimplification. It has never been
corrected. All the so called verifications of
organism fitness altruism allowed by the rule as it stands
remain in hopeless error. All of them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION,
could be EITHER organism fitness altruism or organism
fitness mutualism where each stands in total contradiction
to the other.
All EK has to do is prove that any 100% relative
assumption remains refutable. I can assure him that
it doesn't. But please, don't take my word for it.
EK will now provide this long awaited refutation....
My Regards,
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:-
>
>
>>The problem is not some correctable failure of approach or use or
>>representation. It doesn't involve a voluntary act at all. The problem
>>is a chronic inability to understand what is written on the printed
>>page, and spontaneously to substitute some absurdly distorted creation
>>of imagination for the real underlying idea. Nothing is so easy to
>>understand that Edser cannot make a hash of it - Hardy-Weinberg
>>equilibrium, Hamilton's rule, Special Relativity, Set Theory, Godel's
>>theorem, the list is endless.
>
>
> JE:-
> Once again EK, like JMcG, remain happy to
> denigrate without providing any argument
> that proves their case.
You would inevitably misconstrue any argument I made, since, as I said,
you misconstrue everything.
In the part of my previous post that you snipped, I pointed out how
absurd it is to suppose that your "critique" of Hamilton's rule is a fit
subject for a paper in a professional biology journal. Mad Magazine
would be a more appropriate destination. But if you are so sure that you
have refuted one of the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, why
plaster it all over sbe like graffiti? Why waste time arguing with me or
anyone else here? Why not go ahead and submit to the JofTB? Could it be
that you know (as everyone here knows) that the idea is worthless?
John Edser
ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > Once again EK, like JMcG, remain happy to
> > denigrate without providing any argument
> > that proves their case.
> EK:-
> You would inevitably misconstrue any argument I made, since, as I said,
> you misconstrue everything.
JE:-
More groundless denigration from EK. If you wish to suggest
that I "misconstrue everything" then you are obliged to
provide at least one example, in _detail_. Like
JMcG, your failure to provide anything but pointless
(and endless) denigration proves the case against you.
I REPEAT: Your argument that mass was not a
constant within Newtonian Mechanics simply
because a rocket loses mass as it burns fuel
proves you do not understand the basic issue
under discussion.
> EK:-
> In the part of my previous post that you snipped, I pointed out how
> absurd it is to suppose that your "critique" of Hamilton's rule is a fit
> subject for a paper in a professional biology journal. Mad Magazine
> would be a more appropriate destination. But if you are so sure that you
> have refuted one of the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, why
> plaster it all over sbe like graffiti? Why waste time arguing with me or
> anyone else here? Why not go ahead and submit to the JofTB? Could it be
> that you know (as everyone here knows) that the idea is worthless?
JE:-
The idea I have presented is refutable. No refutable
theory is worthless, only non refutable theories are.
My point in posting it here is to provide a trial.
It has endorsed my worst fears. Evolutionary theory
is run by the irrational for the irrational
but paid for by the general public.
By the way, I have never suggested that Hamilton's
Rule stands refuted I suggested it remains irrefutable.
Your total inability to understand why this is terminal
for the rule diagnoses the epistemological wasting disease
you are suffering from: Post Modernism.