[META] Why can't science be assessable to everyone?

[Kuhan Chandru]

[moderator's note: I've added the "META" tag to the subject line
here to indicate that it's not about evolutionary biology per se,
but rather, about the professional biology endeavor writ large.
I'm happy to host this discussion as long as it's not vituperative
and stays more or less on-topic. - JAH]

This always bugged me, we use taxpayers money for research but we
don't show them the outcome, instead we send it to journals which are
available to institutions but not for the normal person. I wish we can
do more to the taxpayers Read my post about it at and tell me what you
think. http://cellrelics.com/2011/11/01/why-cell-relics-the-objectives-of-the-blog/

[John Edser]

JE:-
The history of science speaks for itself. For example, within
evolutionary theory the most significant discoveries were made by NON
professionals, e.g. Mendel, Darwin and Wallace who by the way, were were
not barred from publishing their work within professional publications.
Unfortunately, amateurs attempting to publish within professional
publications will find this much more difficult today. Of course, in
physics, it was the patent clerk Albert Einstein who changed the face of
that particular science. Since the people both pay for and generate
science all public sector funded research and publications must be made
available to individual members of the public at no extra charge since
they have already paid for it. The big problem with predominately public
sector funded science is that it inevitably evolves toward a public
sector monopoly. This ends up charging the people twice for the same
product/service while at the same time attempting to dictate to the
public what is and what is not acceptable within sciences. A modern
example is the inglorious battle between privately funded Celera and the
publicly funded Human Genome Project. Venter completed the job faster
and more cheaply using his "shotgun" approach. This was rejected by
Watson who headed the incredibly expensive, publicly funded Human Genome
project from which Venter resigned to start his own company.

The evolution of ideas via natural selection EMPIRICALLY (not just
politically) removing theories, represents the power the sciences. This
absolutely requires every idea to compete against every other without
prejudice. As Karl Popper pointed out in the 1960's, theory removal is
only possible via theory falsifiability. If a theory cannot possibly be
falsified it will never be removed while it remains politically
preferred. Unless empirically falsifiable ideas compete on a level
playing field what we historically end up with, for good or ill, are the
entrenched politically correct views of the times. The classic example
is the Catholic churches preferred view of an earth centric solar system
enforced by threats of torture/death. Such an overt monopolistic level
of conservatism was repeated in modern history when the then Soviet
Union's preferred Lysenskoian view, that acquired characters are
inherited, was enforced by Joseph Stalin at the cost of Mendelian genetics.

Today's critical climate change debate has predictably become reduced to
just an ugly political bun fight where amazingly, falsifiability is not
discussed by either side. The scientifically correct use of the key
terms "skepticism" and "prudence" also remains studiously avoided. While
CO2 production via human activity may indeed be the most prudent
causative theory, prudence is only valid when theory falsifiability
remains evident, actively pursued and critically differentiated from
just a non verification. More damaging than anything else to today's
science is a "death by a thousand cuts" employing less extreme acts of
"political correctness" via a politically entrenched public sector that
allows non falsifiable theories as valid science. My example is
Hamilton's oversimplified Inclusive fitness model that can only be non
verified not falsified. I have attempted to raise discussion here on
these emotive subjects for over a decade. The professionals who post
here refuse to discuss my revision of Hamilton's Rule to include
epistasis represented by the variable e (r^e)b>c or more critically, my
inclusion of Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) within the rule to allow it
to become empirically falsifiable: rb>K-c. K represents TDF defined as
the total number of strictly fertile forms reproduced per parent per
population representing a falsifiable fitness constant not just a
variable. Darwinian theory is falsified if after maintaining K equal for
every member of one population for as long as possible, evolution is
observed. Note that this simple test separates random change via
mutation and drift from non random change generated by natural
selection. These are NOT separated within Neo Darwinism. Both continue
to be incorrectly regarded as "evolution". In Darwinian theory random
changes are defined to be the variation on which selection acts.
Allowing variation as evolution reduces evolutionary theory to non
falsifiable for just obvious reasons.

As I keep on pointing out here and elsewhere, allowing sterile infertile
forms a fitness as Hamilton et al continue to do, is not correct simply
because none of them can possibly pass on any of their genes until they
become fertile adults. This simple fact removes the problem of eusocial
fitness altruism that Hamilton attempted to explain. Parents enslaving
their own offspring as sterile workers has always been explicable using
Darwinian theory since these forms are no different to (fertile) body
parts. The formal debate I initiated on the gritty subject of the
falsifiability of Neo Darwinism with one of Dawkins students on Dawkins
own, original website resulted in the immediate closure of that website
and the suspension of all formal debate within his new website.
Hamilton's model has been allowed to misrepresent Darwinian theory. This
misuse was underwritten by the University Of Oxford employing Richard
Dawkins to publicize Hamilton's model with his best seller "The Selfish
Gene". Dawkins is celebrating with 30th anniversary edition.



Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

ed...@ozemail.com.au

[Kuhan Chandru]

On Nov 5, 12:38 am, John Edser <ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On 3/11/2011 5:10 PM, Kuhan Chandru wrote:
>
> > [moderator's note: I've added the "META" tag to the subject line
> > here to indicate that it's not about evolutionary biology per se,
> > but rather, about the professional biology endeavor writ large.
> > I'm happy to host this discussion as long as it's not vituperative
> > and stays more or less on-topic. - JAH]
> > This always bugged me, we use taxpayers money for research but we
> > don't show them the outcome, instead we send it to journals which are
> > available to institutions but not for the normal person. I wish we can
> > do more to the taxpayers Read my post about it at and tell me what you

> > think.  http://cellrelics.com/2011/11/01/why-cell-relics-the-objectives-of-th...

WOW i loved your explanation. I could not have put in better myself.
it would be nice if u can cutand paste this piece on my blog comments,
since the target audience
will get this brilliant piece of info. add it here at
http://cellrelics.com/2011/11/01/why-cell-relics-the-objectives-of-the-blog/