| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ann" |
| Date: |
18 May 2004 05:56:05 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
Hi Richard,
since I'd like to hear your educated opinion but am not sure which
group you follow I included the three of them from our earlier
"Evolution..." discussion. The 'new' challenge is Joan Roughgarden's
(http://www.stanford.edu/group/roughlab/rough.html) "Evolution's
Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"
published this month by University of California Press ($27.50). Here
is Chapter 7 on "Female Choice":
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139/10139.ch07.html. Below I also
attach in full her interview ("Roar of the rainbow warrior") with the
Financial Times newspaper from last weekend May 15/16 (page W3), I
found it rather intriguing and funny.
The exposition starts with a natural selection of my favourite quotes,
of which the most stunning one is how "society likes to pathologise
diversity" (even "bio-diversity of ideas":), what does not fit the
ruling dogma is conveniently termed "mutation, anomaly"... Professor
Joan's words seem like a professional confession of how "ambitious"
scientists like to pathologise/ignore what they do not understand,
though only a conjecture (that shouldn't be excluded, without proof:).
If you have a theory that says something is wrong with so many
people, then the theory is suspect.
"The silence of scientists on sexuality amounts to a cover-up,"
"There is a crisis of diversity at Stanford, there is a
relentless convergence of conformity that discourages diversity
of viewpoint."
So how does Stanford's faculty view her challenge to Darwin?
"You have to remember that these people are extremely smart,"
:) she says. "They are also some of the most ambitious people on
the face of the Earth. If you are doing something outside the
mainstream, they are more likely to ignore you than oppose
you. Their errors are those of omission, not commission."
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, his most famous
book, Kuhn described a pattern by which believers in an
established world view - scientific or otherwise - tend to
ignore evidence that runs counter to the prevailing
orthodoxy. The paradigm shifts only when someone - such as
Copernicus, or, for that matter, Darwin - weaves the discounted
evidence into a coherent alternative.
"The fact that there is no coherent alternative position [to
Darwin] means that pejorative claims go unrefuted. I feel that
biologists have a responsibility to speak up."
"At the moment nobody has a theory for when a species should
change sex. The trouble is that we now know a bunch of species
that switch back and forth. There is no explanation. No
explanation! Biologists are out of ideas."
Roughgarden isn't suggesting an overhaul of Darwin's theory of
:) sexual selection - she is proposing demolition and
redevelopment.
"The biggest problem for Darwin is the failure of experiments to
produce evidence of female choice in the way that he viewed it,"
she explains.
:) "As a society we like to pathologise diversity."
Next comes the interview, enjoy!
Ann.
Roar of the rainbow warrior
The Stanford professor of biology Joan Roughgarden tells Simon
London that Darwin's theory of sexual selection is wrong, and
that she is uniquely placed to break the silence of scientists
on sexuality.
If you have a theory that says something is wrong with so many people,
then the theory is suspect," says Joan, looking up from her Caribbean
chicken salad. "It is counter-intuitive that nature should have done such
a bad job - or, if you prefer, that God should have made so many
mistakes."
The theory in question is Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection; the
"mistakes" are homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals - anyone who does not
fit into the neat categories of heterosexual male and female.
By challenging the great 19th-century naturalist, Joan, a professor of
biological sciences and geophysics at Stanford University, is making waves
in academia and beyond. The implications, not only for science but also
for society, could be profound. After all, you don't need to be
well-versed in The Origin of Species to share Darwin's twin assumptions
that, broadly, the purpose of sex is reproduction and that females select
mates on the basis of genetic characteristics or traits.
The snag, as Joan points out, is that the Darwinian view includes no
plausible explanation for homosexuality. Since homosexual behaviour serves
no evolutionary purpose, it tends to get written off as an anomaly or
unexplained mutation. This, she believes, is the unacknowledged root of so
much prejudice against gays and lesbians.
"The silence of scientists on sexuality amounts to a cover-up," she
says. "I'm not claiming that it is a deliberate cover-up, but studied
silence contributes to the injustice that homosexual people encounter."
What better place to chew over the issues than San Francisco, the most
liberal of US cities and focal point of a national debate over gay and
lesbian marriage? We are eating at the bookshop-*****-cafe run by the
Delancey Street Foundation, a non-profit organisation that offers work and
training to ex-convicts and drug addicts. The room is bright, the service
cheery and the food home-cooked: the salad for her, a spicy meatloaf
sandwich for me.
Joan Roughgarden, 58, lives nearby. These days she feels more at home in
the city's cosmopolitan hubbub than at clean-cut Stanford University, 40
miles to the south. "There is a crisis of diversity at Stanford," she says
as we wait for our order to arrive. "There is a relentless convergence of
conformity that discourages diversity of viewpoint. The education students
are getting not preparing them for the diversity that exists in the
world."
But her interest in diversity is more than academic. Until 1998, Joan
Roughgarden was John Roughgarden. Her experience as a transgendered woman
drives her campaign to show that when it comes to sex and sexuality,
Darwin was wrong. This month sees the publication of her book, Evolution's
Rainbow, the culmination of seven years' study, which spans natural
history, human biology, anthropology and public policy. So how does
Stanford's faculty view her challenge to Darwin?
"You have to remember that these people are extremely smart," she
says. "They are also some of the most ambitious people on the face of the
Earth. If you are doing something outside the mainstream, they are more
likely to ignore you than oppose you. Their errors are those of omission,
not commission."
This sounds like the classic response to what Thomas Kuhn, the late
historian of science, described as a paradigm shift. In The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, his most famous book, Kuhn described a pattern by
which believers in an established world view - scientific or otherwise -
tend to ignore evidence that runs counter to the prevailing orthodoxy. The
paradigm shifts only when someone - such as Copernicus, or, for that
matter, Darwin - weaves the discounted evidence into a coherent
alternative.
When it comes to sexuality, the natural reluctance of scientists to go
beyond Darwin is compounded by the emotionally and politically charged
nature of the debate. While Joan is never less than genial as a lunch
companion, her strength of feeling is clear: "The fact that there is no
coherent alternative position [to Darwin] means that pejorative claims go
unrefuted. I feel that biologists have a responsibility to speak up."
Her alternative paradigm, presented in Evolution's Rainbow, starts with
evidence that natural world is more sexually diverse than usually
appreciated. For example, about a third of the species of tropical fish
swimming over coral reefs change sex at some point during their
lifetime. The conclusion, she says, is that our tendency to divide
creatures into neat piles labelled "male" and "female" is mistaken. But
surely, I interject, the male-female binary is a law of nature. It takes
an egg and sperm to produce life, right?
"At a gamete level there is a clear binary. The mistake biologists make is
to assume that because the egg and sperm are a binary, the whole body has
to be a binary, whereas the body is responding to a whole range of
pressures and factors. At the moment nobody has a theory for when a
species should change sex. The trouble is that we now know a bunch of
species that switch back and forth. There is no explanation. No
explanation! Biologists are out of ideas."
Roughgarden isn't suggesting an overhaul of Darwin's theory of sexual
selection - she is proposing demolition and redevelopment. Her explanation
is that Darwin was wrong to regard sex as solely a matter of
reproduction. It also has a social role. Thus homosexual behaviour, she
says, is a way of building same-sex relationships and strengthening the
position of an individual within a group - far from being an anomaly it's
widespread and useful.
Indeed, her argument is that many of the traits that Darwin viewed as
being used to attract members of the opposite sex - peacock tails, for
example - actually play a larger role in same-sex relationships. "Darwin
says that certain traits are preferred by females, but in fact there is
very little evidence for this. Plus, Darwin failed to take into account
the significance of these traits for other males." Against this
background, homosexuality emerges as just one of the traits used in
same-sex negotiations.
It is an interesting hypothesis, but challenging even to someone who gave
up on the study of biology at the age of 16. My layperson's response is
twofold. First, surely reproduction is still the ultimate objective of all
organisms? Doesn't homosexual behaviour get in the way? Second, thinking
about the homophobia stirred up by the debate over gay marriage,
homosexuality in human society looks like more of a hindrance than a help
in same-sex hierarchies. What wider purpose could it serve?
Joan's response is swift, honed by a hundred seminars. There is no
conclusive evidence, she says, to support the notion that individuals that
exhibit homosexual behaviour produce fewer offspring. As for human
societies, she cites Greek and Roman literature that suggests
homosexuality among men was especially prevalent in times of war. It is
possible, she speculates, that it has its roots in the need to form deep
relationships of mutual protection. Survival is the first priority of any
organism hoping to reproduce - Homo sapiens included. (Roughgarden herself
has a son.)
We adjourn to the service counter to select a dessert. Then it is back to
our table, and back to the peacock's tail, one of Darwin's favourite
examples. If the feathery display is for the benefit of other males, on
what basis does a peahen select a male? Personality? Job prospects?
"The biggest problem for Darwin is the failure of experiments to produce
evidence of female choice in the way that he viewed it," she
explains. When females choose males they seem indifferent to the genes or
traits that the male has. They seem more concerned with the power that
males might have over the survival and safety of the young. It is his
circumstances that are important."
I wonder aloud whether this could be just another area in which we find
diversity - some species select mates on the basis of genetic traits,
others on the basis of circumstance, and still others on some combination
of both. Roughgarden ponders this for a few seconds before breaking into a
wide smile: "I guess it could turn out that Darwin is right on some
species and wrong on others. But as a debating position at the moment I am
claiming that Darwin is wrong on all of them and I am right on all of
them." It is a bold claim - and she knows it.
"If you talk about gender and sexuality the conversation always gets very
complex and political. If you talk about animals, people ask about
humans. If you talk about humans, people ask about testosterone. Once you
start talking about whether homosexuality is adaptive or not, and whether
there is a gene for it or not, you get into the idea that biotechnology
could get rid of homosexuality by eliminating the gene. As a society we
like to pathologise diversity. That is very dangerous."
.
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
18 May 2004 06:58:52 AM |
|
|
I wonder aloud whether this could be just another area in which we find
diversity - some species select mates on the basis of genetic traits,
others on the basis of circumstance, and still others on some combination
of both. Roughgarden ponders this for a few seconds before breaking into a
wide smile: "I guess it could turn out that Darwin is right on some
species and wrong on others. But as a debating position at the moment I am
claiming that Darwin is wrong on all of them and I am right on all of
them." It is a bold claim - and she knows it.
"If you talk about gender and sexuality the conversation always gets very
complex and political. If you talk about animals, people ask about
humans. If you talk about humans, people ask about testosterone. Once you
start talking about whether homosexuality is adaptive or not, and whether
there is a gene for it or not, you get into the idea that biotechnology
could get rid of homosexuality by eliminating the gene. As a society we
like to pathologise diversity. That is very dangerous."
I read this and was struck that an educated person can have such a
fundamental misunderstanding about evolution. It seems as though she is
taking the position that evolution is purpose-driven, in this case to
propagate the species, and that Darwinism therefore discounts homosexuality.
She can study further, but she is more likely to find the roots of
bigotry in other places than biology. Since homosexuality doesn't harm
the species as a whole, there is no reason for natural selection to
select against it. Darwinism would seem to be neutral with regards to a
value system towards homosexuality.
Is Roughgarden using the same tactics as creationists, stating "Since I
don't like what I perceive to be the implications of Darwinism, then
Darwinism must be wrong?"
--
"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are
those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing
science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are
universally denominated rude and barbarous. The patronage which Britain
has shown to Arts, Science and Literature has given her a better
established and lasting rank in the world than she ever acquired by her
arms."
Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
18 May 2004 07:20:09 AM |
|
|
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
I wonder aloud whether this could be just another area in which we find
diversity - some species select mates on the basis of genetic traits,
others on the basis of circumstance, and still others on some combination
of both. Roughgarden ponders this for a few seconds before breaking into a
wide smile: "I guess it could turn out that Darwin is right on some
species and wrong on others. But as a debating position at the moment I am
claiming that Darwin is wrong on all of them and I am right on all of
them." It is a bold claim - and she knows it.
"If you talk about gender and sexuality the conversation always gets very
complex and political. If you talk about animals, people ask about
humans. If you talk about humans, people ask about testosterone. Once you
start talking about whether homosexuality is adaptive or not, and whether
there is a gene for it or not, you get into the idea that biotechnology
could get rid of homosexuality by eliminating the gene. As a society we
like to pathologise diversity. That is very dangerous."
I read this and was struck that an educated person can have such a
fundamental misunderstanding about evolution. It seems as though she is
taking the position that evolution is purpose-driven, in this case to
propagate the species, and that Darwinism therefore discounts homosexuality.
She can study further, but she is more likely to find the roots of
bigotry in other places than biology. Since homosexuality doesn't harm
the species as a whole, there is no reason for natural selection to
select against it. Darwinism would seem to be neutral with regards to a
value system towards homosexuality.
This paragraph seems to incorporate a fundamental misunderstanding of
evolution, if you ask me. Natural selection says nothing about harming
"the species as a whole". It's all about individual reproductive
success. If homosexuality reduces an individual's reproductive success,
it's selected against. If it doesn't, it isn't. (Assuming there is
anything genetic to select, and ignoring any complicating factors like
kin selection or pleiotropy.) Nothing about "species as a whole".
Is Roughgarden using the same tactics as creationists, stating "Since I
don't like what I perceive to be the implications of Darwinism, then
Darwinism must be wrong?"
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's published
on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any real research
involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
28 May 2004 09:06:54 AM |
|
|
Hi David,
a long post, but as you'll see thoughts prompted by you (that is, not
entirely my fault :). In general I understand your major concern, may
even agree with you that the threat would always be there of people
trying to sell "crackpot ideas" under the cover of 'real' science.
Though if we look closely at the history of science one painful
conclusion emerges: it has always been the case. And famous people have
done it too (sold their bogus theories to the gullible:). Invariably a
theory that was considered the ultimate truth (say, Galileo's Sun at
the centre of the Universe, Kepler's laws, Newton's three dimensional
motions and gravitational force) eventually turns out "crackpot" or a
special case of a newer, 'bigger' truth--the next in a row. And by the
same token there is no guarantee that the evolution we firmly believe
in now will be hold in the same high esteem hundred years from now.
Indeed, it seems in the nature of sciences (and religion before that:)
that at any time one fittest theory emerges as the ruling dogma of the
day. Yet following the evolution of beliefs systems through time we may be
surprised to establish that prevailing theories change, they've developed,
'evolved', were modified, overhauled or completely replaced by some new
kid on the block. So much so that now we are not certain any more even
whether our universe is a bending four-dimensional space-time (the
curvatures creating the optical illusion of a 'force' of gravity:) or did
it indeed start as a ten-dimensional hyperspace (stringing along the
"superstrings" here:). One could hardly fail to observe one defining
characteristic of all those beliefs: they are highly abstract (words
basically, like the 'Force', the 'Process':) with the bulk of the 'action'
taking place in our mind, and a great deal of their 'reality' is also
there.
As to the new subject you raised about teensy-weeny viruses it is
interesting in itself, although virology wasn't the purpose of the
thread. Of course, it doesn't mean I have nothing to say, I'm just
hesitating whether I should do it now. As you might expect my views are
highly unorthodox (controversial, heretic:), in fact that is what I liked
in what you told me about scientists Peter Duisberg and Kary Mullis. To
answer your questions in advance, yes, "I've heard" of them but that's
pretty much it, you could tell me some details about their claim if you'd
like. Of course, I am well aware that their statement sounds absurd though
I wouldn't discard (with the 100% certainty of the fanatic:) the
possibility of it being true, not yet and not "without proof". I prefer to
attach some tiny but positive probability to the event of "HIV not a
cause", which is a prudent agnostic (skeptical:) principle of dealing with
life and theories of words:
"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental
characteristic of Western science."
Zuka, Gary in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters'
On Thu, 27 May 2004, David wrote:
Have you heard of Kary Mullis? He believes, lectures and writes
articles that HIV is not the cause of aids. He also wrote a book about
his ideas called "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". By the way he also
won a Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Have you heard of Peter Duisberg? A virologist from Berkeley and he
agrees with Mullis.
So here we have a world famous scientist and a world famous institution
being associated with probably one of the most crackpot ideas in science
today. Therefore, it is very appropriate that John should question
whether Joan is 'hand waving'.
No scientist should be protected from critics just because they have
achieved great things in the past or great honors. In science you are
as credible as your current work.
Joan could well be off on a 'Mullis'. You seem to be along for the
ride.
"Could well be" or could be not, to establish that was the purpose of the
thread. And I have no problem with "John questioning Jaon's" work, the
puzzle was that his remarks "questioned" not the work and its content but
the personality of the author, which I considered "inappropriate"
distractions (the other "publications" and the latest bullet of
"transsexual"). He may of course continue doing so, after all it seems a
common practice in scientific circles people to be judged by the length of
these 'lists' (the autobiographies:). I expressed a personal opinion on
what I 'saw' he was doing. If we are honest, though, it could hardly go
unnoticed that the way he discussed/presented his comments made them sound
not like genuine "questions" but more like discrediting suggestions. And
contrary to popular opinion, impressions the words convey matter, they are
all that remains ('saved' in our permanent memory, our 'hard disk', long
after we've forgotten the 'unimportant' factual details:).
"HIV virus not cause of aids"
is the area you drew your examples from, I guess the topic is of interest
to you. The sheer statement itself sounds so challenging/rebellious that
it could blow way a regular reader (i.e. an educated Westerner who hasn't
heard of the conjecture before:). Not so in my case though :), what is
worse, I may go a step further :) and question even the reality of the
'infinitesimal' viruses, HIV, SARS, you name it. Why should I do it? :)
Because "the important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its
own reason for existing" (Einstein). In other words, I shall strengthen
your statement to
There are no viruses
:) How does it sound? Well, note that first and foremost the 'v-i-r-u-s'
is a word: a sequence of letters/symbols/sounds/characters (like the
'gene':) and the corresponding image we imagine/attach to in our mind. The
question is: Is it much more than that?
Yeah, I know, sounds "incredibly" insane (at first:), I wouldn't mind if
you consider it "crackpot" stupidity. Or if you prefer you may take it as
a joke, and in that case: Welcome and enjoy the ride!, for there are a
couple of other jokes to come:). The first question you may rush to ask,
and quite rightly so, is: Why then are those people dying? How come that
reported victims are dying if there were no virus (HIV, say)? Well, to
answer this we need a short (a paragraph or two:) introduction into the
power of the trusting mind.
Start with the observation that all our actions depend on our beliefs,
what we believe determines how we act in life. The next observation is
that nowadays scientists are 'gods', the only ones officially allowed to
speak the truth about the 'real world' enjoying the infinite trust of the
public. And all the more so medical scientists, doctors are the highest
authority when it comes to our health/life ('naturally' so one would
say:). Of course, in the past there have been other gods in human form
like kings, popes, shamans...
What distinguishes them is that their word cannot be broken, they are
believed to speak the ultimate truth. In Australia, for instance, some
time ago when a healthy member (usually elderly) of the tribe "was given
the bone" by the shaman it meant he/she would and should die. The chosen
'member' would retreat and indeed die within a couple of days (from a
'natural' cause, no assisted suicides here, just wait and prepare for the
bone the whole life, and then, when given the sign, 'fell sick', lie and
die:). Notice that it was a conscious choice, the most 'logical' decision
to take given the unshakable belief in shaman's sound of inevitability.
The 'bone' is of course a word, the splinter in our mind driving us mad,
and not surprisingly again "In the Beginning was the Word", I often
stumble upon this biblical regularity and find it very intriguing. Anyway,
one way or another it seems the effect has been the same, no matter which
god was speaking, whether it were the diagnosing words of shamans, doctors
or aids 'experts'. Important is the adjuring words to be believed to
obsession, then somehow they'll make their way to 'reality outside'.
The first step is some terminal diagnose of the kind "Thou shalt surely
die!". The dead earnest message can also come in the form of some lab
tests, it works too and is perfectly valid (i.e. believed:). The defining
property of the terminal message is that it is serious (no jokes allowed)
and certain, it ascertains the gloomy 'truth' with absolute (scholastic)
certainty, it leaves no room for doubt, alternatives or choices on our
part, we have to accept the words of 'Lord'. The certain news shocks the
soul, we accept our inevitable fate, but it also (as a byproduct:) helps
medical research, for desperate 'subjects' are the best guinea pigs, ready
for any sacrifices, experiments, treatments. I mean, once we're told the
horrible worst case scenario and deprived of any (other:) hope or
alternative then we'll do whatever god says.
This is the 'power' of the mind: take a 'god' that the subject firmly
believes in, let the god diagnose the subject and also let the subject
know (the splinter:). Then 'educate' a bit the 'ignorant' subject:
describe the scary illness (or the foreign/latin word for it:), describe
precisely the sure terminal outcome (possibly showing 'fancy' pictures or
photographs to alleviate our imagination:), spell out the symptoms and
then we could see all sorts of miracles happening. For instance, the
trusting (credulous, unaware of the alternative) mind may indeed go for the
sure thing -- the 'patient' may choose to succumb to the diagnosing
'splinter', obey and develop all symptoms exactly as de/pre-scribed and
even die, eventually, with the dead certainty that it was the almighty
'virus'.
This, in short, is the price of 'knowledge', one of the unintended
consequences of medical 'education' (examinations, regular visits). View
it that way, the supply of good reasons to die ("with dignity":) is
steadily increasing to keep pace with medical 'discoveries' (and our
rising demand:). And in the end we may just pick one (that suits us best:)
of the various words/ways to die and choose to make it real, first in our
mind and then... elsewhere:).
Alas, 'viruses' are constantly gaining in popularity, spreading like the
Word or faster, expanding like the universe after the Big Bang. And there
are many reasons for our love for the word. One of them is that it allowed
medics to have something to say when they do not know. If we feel sick or
cold then it must be a virus, you see, if it isn't something more obvious
than the invisible comes to the rescue. In short, if they cannot explain
something (let alone help:) then it was the 'virus' to blame.
Curiously enough, the concept of the 'virus' is very appealing to
biologists too, not least because it provided support for the mutating
evolution. Many scientists 'saw' in viruses living proofs for the
evolution happening in real time, the HIV being a notable example. You
attack the virus, goes the story, but it doesn't die, it "fitly
survives" by rapidly (even unusually so, ultra-fast:) evolving,
mutating, adapting to the new environment (treatment:). The logic is
iron, if the virus were for real (i.e. the cause; assumed by default)
and has survived the chemical attack (e.g. the patient wasn't cured:)
then it must have mutated. And the teensy-weeny HIV 'creature' was
found most cunning of them all, so much so that currently rather
unconventional strategies are proposed like, stopping 'treatment'
altogether (the constant intake of 'healing' drugs, that is).
Insane as it sounds it may actually work, not necessarily for the
official reasons (stated below), but who knows, only time can tell.
Anyway, research experiments are taking place along those novel lines,
in which the treatment is interrupted for month or so in the hope to
cheat the 'almighty', i.e. to lure the virus to un-adapt, to
restore/regain its common (convenient, studied:) 'shape' and 'form';
then suddenly shock 'him' with a fresh overdose of conventional drugs
('known' to be effective). Initial results seem promising, yet to me
the outcome would again depend on our unwavering belief: If we, the
patient, are totally convinced it were the ultimate cure then it might
work (i.e. we may find inner strength to remove the 'splinter':).
Provided, of course, the intensive 'chemotherapy' allows us to reap the
benefits of the cure, that is, if in the meantime the drugs' side
effects do not prematurely kill us.
Here I shall put an arbitrary end to the virology digression, it was meant
more to cheer up the conversation with a couple of thought-provoking (I
bet you'd choose another adjective here:) ideas.
Best,
Ann
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
12 Jun 2004 12:43:21 PM |
|
|
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
And famous people have
done it too (sold their bogus theories to the gullible:). Invariably a
theory that was considered the ultimate truth (say, Galileo's Sun at
the centre of the Universe, Kepler's laws, Newton's three dimensional
motions and gravitational force) eventually turns out "crackpot" or a
special case of a newer, 'bigger' truth--the next in a row. And by the
same token there is no guarantee that the evolution we firmly believe
in now will be hold in the same high esteem hundred years from now.
Your use of the word crackpot is extreme at best. And as new data is
collected, sure, evolution may well turn out to be wrong. But no
scientist will be surprised if theories are changed to fit all the
available data. However, until new data comes along why not stick the
ideas that best fit the data?
<snip>
On Thu, 27 May 2004, David wrote:
Have you heard of Kary Mullis? He believes, lectures and writes
articles that HIV is not the cause of aids. He also wrote a book about
his ideas called "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". By the way he also
won a Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Have you heard of Peter Duisberg? A virologist from Berkeley and he
agrees with Mullis.
So here we have a world famous scientist and a world famous institution
being associated with probably one of the most crackpot ideas in science
today. Therefore, it is very appropriate that John should question
whether Joan is 'hand waving'.
As you might expect my views are
highly unorthodox (controversial, heretic:), in fact that is what I liked
in what you told me about scientists Peter Duisberg and Kary Mullis. To
answer your questions in advance, yes, "I've heard" of them but that's
pretty much it, you could tell me some details about their claim if you'd
like. Of course, I am well aware that their statement sounds absurd though
I wouldn't discard (with the 100% certainty of the fanatic:) the
possibility of it being true, not yet and not "without proof". I prefer to
attach some tiny but positive probability to the event of "HIV not a
cause", which is a prudent agnostic (skeptical:) principle of dealing with
life and theories of words:
"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental
characteristic of Western science."
Zuka, Gary in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters'
The evidence is against the hypothesis of "HIV does not cause AIDS".
That is proof enough for most people. By the way what ethical way would
you go about trying to prove this hypothesis? Also note that some
people will inevitably be resistant to the virus. So if you find a few
people who have HIV and do not die from AIDS does this prove the
hypothesis despite the fact that millions with HIV die from AIDS every
year?
<snip>
"HIV virus not cause of aids"
<snip>
The sheer statement itself sounds so challenging/rebellious that
it could blow way a regular reader (i.e. an educated Westerner who hasn't
heard of the conjecture before:). Not so in my case though :), what is
worse, I may go a step further :) and question even the reality of the
'infinitesimal' viruses, HIV, SARS, you name it. Why should I do it? :)
Because "the important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its
own reason for existing" (Einstein). In other words, I shall strengthen
your statement to
There are no viruses
How does it sound?
Nuts! And you are trolling. Also, I have to wonder how they sequenced
the SARS genome if the virus does not exist?
Scientist usually choose questions that make sense based on our current
knowledge. New ideas usually come from tangents to the main line of
questioning.
You are proposing that scientists pick random questions based on
superstition. These are less likely to give exciting breakthroughs than
the fortunate tangents that come from main line research.
<snip monolog on people willing themselves to death and drug treatment
plans for AIDS being bad due to the side effects>
There is a lot of evidence building in the medical community that
placebo effect is real. In other words a positive outlook will lead to
a healthier life and quicker recovery. Our bodies have amazingly good
natural defense mechanisms and they seem to work even better when the
brain chemistry leads to a positive emotional state. We also know that
the opposite can occur and people will themselves to death. How often
you see partners die within a year of each other the second often dies
for not apparent medical reason.
Doctors don't deny these observations. However, if you get a killer
virus or an aggressive cancer a positive attitude will not help you that
much. Denying the existence of the virus despite all the contrary
evidence seems foolhardy to say the least. You talk a lot about
westerners so I presume you are an advocate for the eastern traditional
medicines. Do the eastern medicines deny that disease is real? I doubt
it.
David
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
27 May 2004 12:46:38 PM |
|
|
Hi John,
do you feel the tension rising with each post, now we were blessed with
"some sort of evil plots, male-domination conspiracies, discrediting
transsexual scientists". Pure products of your wild imagination, or was
it honesty springing (subconsciously:) from the inmost parts of the
mind.
Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It
springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is
the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors a
man's form or likeness so true as his speech.
Benjamin Jonson
Now I will summon all my ingenuity and try yet another way of
describing my point of view, and who knows, perhaps even making you
'see' what I 'see'. Do you remember the two examples I gave of Darwin
and Einstein, have any idea why I used them. {Yes, I understand your
reservations about Darwin, but if we are strict to the letter of your
argument of "the list with previous, relevant and peer-reviewed
publications" then you'll see my point too. Or maybe you are aware of
such publication on evolution prior to its "Origin...", let me know.}
The idea was that there are many examples in the history of science
where major break-throughs were not preceded by long lists of relevant
publications. In other words, the list of relevant previous
publications is not a necessary prerequisite for scientific value, no
guarantee for "real research" quality (but for boredom, maybe:), in the
case of Einstein this list was empty.
Note also that I opened this thread to learn the truth about a theory,
the old and proposed new one, I did not start the thread to discuss
("discredit":) the personality of the author. In particular, I couldn't
care less about Joan's previous publications or whether she were
feminist or "transsexual scientist", for these tell us little about the
value/validity of the theory in her present book. That you bring such
personal issues to the fore reminds me once again that you're
interested mainly in the personality of the author (and how to
"discredit" it:). You weren't argumenting but launching a personal
attack on her, something I called distraction. The last three posts of
mine were just that: letting you know what you were doing.
Best,
Ann
On Thu, 27 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
sometime ago I jokingly summarised the observation into a so called
universal law of diversity of thermodynamic human nature: We see what
we would like to see (people vary in their sense of sight:). And
indeed, while I thought I was unequivocally clear about my "points" you
failed to "see" them:
On Wed, 26 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
To be honest I see no reason for this fashionable obsession with
neat research biographies and tidy long lists of publications, do
only such people deserve our respect and attention?
So far, I see nothing to respond to.
:) Yeah, the converse also holds: we do not see what we would not like
to see. That "nothing" may become "something" once you remember your
words from 18 May and the reply to Earle from 22 May, are you sure you
need the quotes. In brief, you placed emphasis on the list of her
publications, which became a 'convincing' argument against her new
book.
I wouldn't call it a convincing argument exactly, but it remains a
serious question for me. What has she ever published on the subject of
this book, aside from the book itself?
Actually, if you soberly think about it, compared to them professor
Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much worthier
of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
I see no point to any of that either.
The "point to it" was so simple that it is a puzzle how you failed to
"see" it. Your 'genuine' inquiry into whether it were "real research"
and even suggestion that it could be instead "just arm-waving" was an
attempt to attack the person. Instead on the essence (her current work)
you focused on her scientific credentials and previous work. In short,
your comment was the clearest example of distraction, for the purpose
of...?
Some sort of evil plot on my part to discredit transexual scientists?
The international male-domination conspiracy? What's your theory?
Here is one of the contentious paragraphs, the origin, the others
followed in your desperate attempt to defend it at all costs instead of
openly admitting (that it was "poor etiquette" on your part:)
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
So far I haven't seen any suggestion of real research on her part on
this subject. If you know of any, please point it out. On the basis of
the sample chapter, she does however at least seem familiar with the
literature. On the third hand, she doesn't seem to be letting the data
lead to conclusions, but using a selective choice of papers to support a
prior conclusion. That's a polemic, not a real scientific review.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
27 May 2004 01:30:43 PM |
|
|
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
John Harshman wrote:>
NOTE this has been edited without identifying snips! I have tried to un
top post anns comments.
To be honest I see no reason for this fashionable obsession with
neat research biographies and tidy long lists of publications, do
only such people deserve our respect and attention?
So far, I see nothing to respond to.
:) Yeah, the converse also holds: we do not see what we would not like
to see. That "nothing" may become "something" once you remember your
words from 18 May and the reply to Earle from 22 May, are you sure you
need the quotes. In brief, you placed emphasis on the list of her
publications, which became a 'convincing' argument against her new
book.
I wouldn't call it a convincing argument exactly, but it remains a
serious question for me. What has she ever published on the subject of
this book, aside from the book itself?
Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much worthier
of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
I see no point to any of that either.
The "point to it" was so simple that it is a puzzle how you failed to
"see" it. Your 'genuine' inquiry into whether it were "real research"
and even suggestion that it could be instead "just arm-waving" was an
attempt to attack the person. Instead on the essence (her current work)
you focused on her scientific credentials and previous work. In short,
your comment was the clearest example of distraction, for the purpose
of...?
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
So far I haven't seen any suggestion of real research on her part on
this subject. If you know of any, please point it out. On the basis of
the sample chapter, she does however at least seem familiar with the
literature. On the third hand, she doesn't seem to be letting the data
lead to conclusions, but using a selective choice of papers to support a
prior conclusion. That's a polemic, not a real scientific review.
.... there are many examples in the history of science
where major break-throughs were not preceded by long lists of relevant
publications. In other words, the list of relevant previous
publications is not a necessary prerequisite for scientific value, no
guarantee for "real research" quality (but for boredom, maybe:), in the
case of Einstein this list was empty.
Note also that I opened this thread to learn the truth about a theory,
the old and proposed new one, I did not start the thread to discuss
("discredit":) the personality of the author.
Hi Ann, So will Joan be publishing any of her work in peer reviewed
journals or will it only come out in book form?
Have you heard of Kary Mullis? He believes, lectures and writes
articles that HIV is not the cause of aids. He also wrote a book about
his ideas called "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". By the way he also
won a Nobel Prize for chemistry.
Have you heard of Peter Duisberg? A virologist from Berkeley and he
agrees with Mullis.
So here we have a world famous scientist and a world famous institution
being associated with probably one of the most crackpot ideas in science
today. Therefore, it is very appropriate that John should question
whether Joan is 'hand waving'.
No scientist should be protected from critics just because they have
achieved great things in the past or great honors. In science you are
as credible as your current work.
Joan could well be off on a 'Mullis'. You seem to be along for the
ride.
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
27 May 2004 01:31:36 PM |
|
|
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
do you feel the tension rising with each post, now we were blessed with
"some sort of evil plots, male-domination conspiracies, discrediting
transsexual scientists". Pure products of your wild imagination, or was
it honesty springing (subconsciously:) from the inmost parts of the
mind.
Since most of this discussion is happening only in the inmost parts of
*your* mind, I would have no idea. I don't see any rising tension. My
tension level has always been low, and yours has always been high. Why,
I don't know. (By the way, there's still a problem with the threading of
your posts. You really should look at that.)
Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It
springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is
the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors a
man's form or likeness so true as his speech.
Benjamin Jonson
Now I will summon all my ingenuity and try yet another way of
describing my point of view, and who knows, perhaps even making you
'see' what I 'see'. Do you remember the two examples I gave of Darwin
and Einstein, have any idea why I used them. {Yes, I understand your
reservations about Darwin, but if we are strict to the letter of your
argument of "the list with previous, relevant and peer-reviewed
publications" then you'll see my point too. Or maybe you are aware of
such publication on evolution prior to its "Origin...", let me know.}
Yes, I am. Darwin and Wallace co-authored a paper on the subject in
1858. And Darwin left a paper trail in private correspondence for many
years before that. However, that's irrelevant. That was then, this is
now. Science is done differently now.
The idea was that there are many examples in the history of science
where major break-throughs were not preceded by long lists of relevant
publications. In other words, the list of relevant previous
publications is not a necessary prerequisite for scientific value, no
guarantee for "real research" quality (but for boredom, maybe:), in the
case of Einstein this list was empty.
That may well be. Then again, everybody needs a first paper. I'm still
surprised at the lack of publications. If indeed that's true, and I'm
beginning to be fairly assured that it is.
Note also that I opened this thread to learn the truth about a theory,
the old and proposed new one, I did not start the thread to discuss
("discredit":) the personality of the author.
You did? How's it going so far?
In particular, I couldn't
care less about Joan's previous publications or whether she were
feminist or "transsexual scientist", for these tell us little about the
value/validity of the theory in her present book. That you bring such
personal issues to the fore reminds me once again that you're
interested mainly in the personality of the author (and how to
"discredit" it:). You weren't argumenting but launching a personal
attack on her, something I called distraction. The last three posts of
mine were just that: letting you know what you were doing.
Thanks, but I think I know what I'm doing better than you do. I don't
consider this a personal attack at all.
By the way, do you see how putting my comments after the parts they are
responding to makes all this easier to follow? This is especially true
if the post is getting rather long. As it is, I've snipped out all the
context (below) because it woudl just be too hard to find.
[snip all the stuff you ignore]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
25 May 2004 03:19:06 PM |
|
|
Hi John,
let me first thank you for your thought provoking comments from 19 May
and later. Alas, I'm afraid I'll have to join Earle's opinion that your
'friendly questions' were in fact no questions but "just arm-waving"
"insinuations" or mere performance for the Usenet 'crowd'. I mean, ask
yourself what was the genuine purpose of those special effects:
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
And did you really need Earle for the link with Joan's "research"
credentials and "peer-reviewed publications". By the way the same link
was provided in the opening post of the thread (quickly dismissed by a
simple "[snip]", e.g. in your 19 May post:), it was in the very first
paragraph:
The 'new' challenge is Joan Roughgarden's
(http://www.stanford.edu/group/roughlab/rough.html) "Evolution's
Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"
published this month by University of California Press ($27.50).
Here is Chapter 7 on "Female Choice":
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139/10139.ch07.html. Below I
also attach in full her interview ("Roar of the rainbow warrior")
with the Financial Times newspaper from last weekend May 15/16 (page
W3), I found it rather intriguing and funny.
Ann, 18 May 2004
Since your first reply came mighty fast I sort of expected you could
have 'overlooked' this 'unimportant details' and instead gone straight
for the 'meat' -- the 'juicy' interview conducted by a complete layman
(as the journalist honestly admitted:). Note also that "not having read
the book" is no excuse, not even a serious argument, go figure :).
Moreover, in order "to read [a sample of] the book" you needed no
"access to BIOSIS", not even buy it but just click on the second link
above and "read"... read before you reply, read before launching cheap
personal attacks, read before "you wonder". It is a complete chapter
(perhaps not the best one, but still:) of "Dr. Roughgarden's recent
work" that "seems to have something to do with sexual selection...or
any of the matters being discussed".
Best,
Ann
On Sat, 22 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Earle Jones wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
This paragraph seems to incorporate a fundamental misunderstanding
of evolution, if you ask me. Natural selection says nothing about
harming "the species as a whole". It's all about individual
reproductive success. If homosexuality reduces an individual's
reproductive success, it's selected against. If it doesn't, it
isn't. (Assuming there is anything genetic to select, and ignoring
any complicating factors like kin selection or pleiotropy.) Nothing
about "species as a whole".
I accept that your understanding of evolution is far stronger than
mine, but apparently I misstated what I meant. Homosexuality doesn't
lead to extinction as far as I can tell.
It would lead to extinction of the "homosexual genotype" if indeed
homosexuals didn't reproduce and there were no counteracting effects.
Is Roughgarden using the same tactics as creationists, stating
"Since I don't like what I perceive to be the implications of
Darwinism, then Darwinism must be wrong?"
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any real
research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
*
She has published a bit:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/roughlab/rough.html lists 102 papers in
various well-known journals. She has also written four books.
She has served as the primary advisor of 14 PhD students and 13
post-doc researchers.
At Stanford since 1977, she has a joint appointment as Professor in the
departments of Biological Sciences and Geophysics. She is the Director
of the Earth Systems Program.
Why would one think that her work was not "real research" and just
"arm-waving"? Shouldn't you check her credentials yourself (it took me
about three minutes) before you make those insinuations?
No insinuations, just questions. I still wonder, for example, why the
last listed publication was back in 1994. And why none of the
publications seem to have anything to do with sexual selection,
homosexuality, sex-switching, or any of the matters being
discussed. (Though apparently it was last updated in 1995, which itself
seems odd.) Medline has a few more recent publications, and none of
those have anything to do with the matters at hand either. Very
puzzling.
Dr. Roughgarden's work and the work of her students all seem to have
something to do with the ecology of anoles or of marine communities
around upwellings. Nothing whatsoever anywhere near the subject of her
book. If she's done any research on the subject, she appears not to have
published it in any journal indexed by Medline. Perhaps someone with
acccess to BIOSIS can offer further information.
And I also wonder why the interview (all I have to work with) seems to
show no familiarity with the literature on the subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
25 May 2004 05:37:34 PM |
|
|
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
For your information: top-posting is considered poor usenet ettiquette.
Put your responses after the stuff you are responding to.
let me first thank you for your thought provoking comments from 19 May
and later. Alas, I'm afraid I'll have to join Earle's opinion that your
'friendly questions' were in fact no questions but "just arm-waving"
"insinuations" or mere performance for the Usenet 'crowd'.
They weren't friendly questions. I had serious doubts about
Roughgarden's ideas. Still do.
I mean, ask
yourself what was the genuine purpose of those special effects:
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
And did you really need Earle for the link with Joan's "research"
credentials and "peer-reviewed publications". By the way the same link
was provided in the opening post of the thread (quickly dismissed by a
simple "[snip]", e.g. in your 19 May post:), it was in the very first
paragraph:
The 'new' challenge is Joan Roughgarden's
(http://www.stanford.edu/group/roughlab/rough.html) "Evolution's
Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"
published this month by University of California Press ($27.50).
Here is Chapter 7 on "Female Choice":
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139/10139.ch07.html. Below I
also attach in full her interview ("Roar of the rainbow warrior")
with the Financial Times newspaper from last weekend May 15/16 (page
W3), I found it rather intriguing and funny.
Ann, 18 May 2004
Since your first reply came mighty fast I sort of expected you could
have 'overlooked' this 'unimportant details' and instead gone straight
for the 'meat' -- the 'juicy' interview conducted by a complete layman
(as the journalist honestly admitted:). Note also that "not having read
the book" is no excuse, not even a serious argument, go figure :).
Moreover, in order "to read [a sample of] the book" you needed no
"access to BIOSIS",
That's not the point of access to BIOSIS. The point was to figure out
what she has published on this in the peer-reviewed literature. Unless I
missed it, she never referenced herself in that sample chapter. Is it
really true that she has published (before the book) nothing on this
subject?
not even buy it but just click on the second link
above and "read"... read before you reply, read before launching cheap
personal attacks, read before "you wonder". It is a complete chapter
(perhaps not the best one, but still:) of "Dr. Roughgarden's recent
work" that "seems to have something to do with sexual selection...or
any of the matters being discussed".
That's not what I mean by "recent work". This chapter is a review. It
does at least show she's familiar with the literature, though I would
consider it a very selective choice of papers used to make her points.
Animal sexual systems are extremely diverse, and there is a system to
make any point you would like to. Different species have sex and/or
pair-bonds for all sorts of reasons.
But what I meant by "recent work" would be actual research or
theoretical papers on this subject, done by her or at least published
with her as one of the authors. The apparent absence of such work
puzzles me extremely. One explanation is that I just haven't found it,
which is why the request about BIOSIS.
Do you have some sort of personal stake in this? You seem seriously het
up, and I don't know why.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
27 May 2004 08:17:57 AM |
|
|
Hi John,
sometime ago I jokingly summarised the observation into a so called
universal law of diversity of thermodynamic human nature: We see what
we would like to see (people vary in their sense of sight:). And
indeed, while I thought I was unequivocally clear about my "points" you
failed to "see" them:
On Wed, 26 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
To be honest I see no reason for this fashionable obsession with
neat research biographies and tidy long lists of publications, do
only such people deserve our respect and attention?
So far, I see nothing to respond to.
:) Yeah, the converse also holds: we do not see what we would not like
to see. That "nothing" may become "something" once you remember your
words from 18 May and the reply to Earle from 22 May, are you sure you
need the quotes. In brief, you placed emphasis on the list of her
publications, which became a 'convincing' argument against her new
book.
Actually, if you soberly think about it, compared to them professor
Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much worthier
of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
I see no point to any of that either.
The "point to it" was so simple that it is a puzzle how you failed to
"see" it. Your 'genuine' inquiry into whether it were "real research"
and even suggestion that it could be instead "just arm-waving" was an
attempt to attack the person. Instead on the essence (her current work)
you focused on her scientific credentials and previous work.
In short, your comment was the clearest example of distraction, for the
purpose of...?
Here is one of the contentious paragraphs, the origin, the others
followed in your desperate attempt to defend it at all costs instead of
openly admitting (that it was "poor etiquette" on your part:)
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
27 May 2004 09:52:08 AM |
|
|
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
sometime ago I jokingly summarised the observation into a so called
universal law of diversity of thermodynamic human nature: We see what
we would like to see (people vary in their sense of sight:). And
indeed, while I thought I was unequivocally clear about my "points" you
failed to "see" them:
On Wed, 26 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
To be honest I see no reason for this fashionable obsession with
neat research biographies and tidy long lists of publications, do
only such people deserve our respect and attention?
So far, I see nothing to respond to.
:) Yeah, the converse also holds: we do not see what we would not like
to see. That "nothing" may become "something" once you remember your
words from 18 May and the reply to Earle from 22 May, are you sure you
need the quotes. In brief, you placed emphasis on the list of her
publications, which became a 'convincing' argument against her new
book.
I wouldn't call it a convincing argument exactly, but it remains a
serious question for me. What has she ever published on the subject of
this book, aside from the book itself?
Actually, if you soberly think about it, compared to them professor
Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much worthier
of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
I see no point to any of that either.
The "point to it" was so simple that it is a puzzle how you failed to
"see" it. Your 'genuine' inquiry into whether it were "real research"
and even suggestion that it could be instead "just arm-waving" was an
attempt to attack the person. Instead on the essence (her current work)
you focused on her scientific credentials and previous work.
In short, your comment was the clearest example of distraction, for the
purpose of...?
Some sort of evil plot on my part to discredit transexual scientists?
The international male-domination conspiracy? What's your theory?
Here is one of the contentious paragraphs, the origin, the others
followed in your desperate attempt to defend it at all costs instead of
openly admitting (that it was "poor etiquette" on your part:)
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
So far I haven't seen any suggestion of real research on her part on
this subject. If you know of any, please point it out. On the basis of
the sample chapter, she does however at least seem familiar with the
literature. On the third hand, she doesn't seem to be letting the data
lead to conclusions, but using a selective choice of papers to support a
prior conclusion. That's a polemic, not a real scientific review.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
26 May 2004 09:25:41 AM |
|
|
Hi John,
you didn't like something about my last reply, did you. Do you know what
was it that disturbed you and 'forced' you to call up the "poor usenet
etiquette" (in patent violation of your own no "top-posting" rule:)?
On Tue, 25 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
For your information: top-posting is considered poor usenet etiquette.
Put your responses after the stuff you are responding to.
Let me, first, thank you very much "for your [precious] information",
how kind of you letting us know of the "Usenet" rules. Second, "for
your information" determining how the "responses" of others should look
like "is considered [by me] poor usenet etiquette", have any idea why?
We may "put our responses" anywhere we choose, we may shape our posts any
way we like, that is what freedom of speech and expression is all
about. Or are we not allowed to? By whom? Who's the authority to prescribe
the only possible rules of Usenet communication, who's the Censor to
determine the only 'proper' style of Internet discussion?
If you're indeed dead earnest about the 'scientific' style, then go for
it, be its 'dogmatic' slave and use it as much as you like in the
"peer-reviewed literature". And please, feel free to abide by the
'serious' rules even here but do not try to impose them on everybody
else. For our preferences may differ widely from yours, go figure. It is
as simple as that, it is called 'bio-diversity' in nature or variety of
ideas and opinions on how we communicate in Internet.
As far as your persistent invocation of the "peer-reviewed literature" or
lack thereof, I still consider it a "special effect" (or "poor usenet
etiquette"), you know why? Because you concentrate on the personality of
the author and not on what she has written (the "recent work"--the product
of last seven years). Your 'polite' remarks (and "wondering" whether her
book were "real research") steer the dialogue in a misguided direction,
making it a discussion not about contents (the "real research":) but about
appearances (like "publications", "credentials", "research"
certificates:). To be honest I see no reason for this fashionable
obsession with neat research biographies and tidy long lists of
publications, do only such people deserve our respect and attention?
Do you know what Albert Einstein's research credentials were in 1905 --
before his first article "On a heuristic point of view concerning the
production and transformation of light" (for which he received the Nobel
Prize in 1921)? The answer is zero, no "peer-reviewed publications" prior
to that. Or take Darwin, for that matter, can you guess his scientific
credentials before "The origin of species"? Well, he has published several
narratives surveying the voyages on board of "Her Majesty's ships
Adventure and Beagle". And the only official degree he hold prior to that
was not in biology, go figure, but for a clergyman in the Church of
England. Actually, if you soberly think about it, compared to them
professor Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much
worthier of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
Best,
Ann
On Tue, 25 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
For your information: top-posting is considered poor usenet ettiquette.
Put your responses after the stuff you are responding to.
let me first thank you for your thought provoking comments from 19 May
and later. Alas, I'm afraid I'll have to join Earle's opinion that your
'friendly questions' were in fact no questions but "just arm-waving"
"insinuations" or mere performance for the Usenet 'crowd'.
They weren't friendly questions. I had serious doubts about
Roughgarden's ideas. Still do.
I mean, ask
yourself what was the genuine purpose of those special effects:
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
And did you really need Earle for the link with Joan's "research"
credentials and "peer-reviewed publications". By the way the same link
was provided in the opening post of the thread (quickly dismissed by a
simple "[snip]", e.g. in your 19 May post:), it was in the very first
paragraph:
The 'new' challenge is Joan Roughgarden's
(http://www.stanford.edu/group/roughlab/rough.html) "Evolution's
Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"
published this month by University of California Press ($27.50).
Here is Chapter 7 on "Female Choice":
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139/10139.ch07.html. Below I
also attach in full her interview ("Roar of the rainbow warrior")
with the Financial Times newspaper from last weekend May 15/16 (page
W3), I found it rather intriguing and funny.
Ann, 18 May 2004
Since your first reply came mighty fast I sort of expected you could
have 'overlooked' this 'unimportant details' and instead gone straight
for the 'meat' -- the 'juicy' interview conducted by a complete layman
(as the journalist honestly admitted:). Note also that "not having read
the book" is no excuse, not even a serious argument, go figure :).
Moreover, in order "to read [a sample of] the book" you needed no
"access to BIOSIS",
That's not the point of access to BIOSIS. The point was to figure out
what she has published on this in the peer-reviewed literature. Unless I
missed it, she never referenced herself in that sample chapter. Is it
really true that she has published (before the book) nothing on this
subject?
not even buy it but just click on the second link
above and "read"... read before you reply, read before launching cheap
personal attacks, read before "you wonder". It is a complete chapter
(perhaps not the best one, but still:) of "Dr. Roughgarden's recent
work" that "seems to have something to do with sexual selection...or
any of the matters being discussed".
That's not what I mean by "recent work". This chapter is a review. It
does at least show she's familiar with the literature, though I would
consider it a very selective choice of papers used to make her
points. Animal sexual systems are extremely diverse, and there is a
system to make any point you would like to. Different species have sex
and/or pair-bonds for all sorts of reasons.
But what I meant by "recent work" would be actual research or
theoretical papers on this subject, done by her or at least published
with her as one of the authors. The apparent absence of such work
puzzles me extremely. One explanation is that I just haven't found it,
which is why the request about BIOSIS.
Do you have some sort of personal stake in this? You seem seriously het
up, and I don't know why.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
26 May 2004 03:20:39 PM |
|
|
Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0405261628180.2247-100000@cicero.local>...
Hi John,
[snip
Or take Darwin, for that matter, can you guess his scientific
credentials before "The origin of species"? Well, he has published several
narratives surveying the voyages on board of "Her Majesty's ships
Adventure and Beagle". And the only official degree he hold prior to that
was not in biology, go figure, but for a clergyman in the Church of
England. Actually, if you soberly think about it, compared to them
professor Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much
worthier of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
[snip]
You are misstaken about Darwin's publication history prior to Origin
of Species. His scientific publications were numerous prior to
Origin, only a few of which are listed here:
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin2/texts.html.
By 1850's Darwin was already one of the World's leading scientists,
and one of the most published in his fields of study. And his degree
was a general undergraduate degree; he did not have a science degree
for the simple reason that none existed in the UK at the time he
entered college (unless you count medical degrees, which is hardly the
point). He did in fact study the relevent sciences, formally in
school, and informally from several leading scientists. Darwin in
truth got one of the best educations a naturalist could get in the UK,
in the 1830s.
Mitchell Coffey
mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
26 May 2004 11:53:44 AM |
|
|
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
you didn't like something about my last reply, did you. Do you know what
was it that disturbed you and 'forced' you to call up the "poor usenet
etiquette" (in patent violation of your own no "top-posting" rule:)?
Just a friendly note to an apparent newby. I didn't violate the
top-posting rule. I put it where it was relevant, which is the purpose
behind the rule. (Not really a rule, but a point of netiquette.)
On Tue, 25 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
For your information: top-posting is considered poor usenet etiquette.
Put your responses after the stuff you are responding to.
Let me, first, thank you very much "for your [precious] information",
how kind of you letting us know of the "Usenet" rules. Second, "for
your information" determining how the "responses" of others should look
like "is considered [by me] poor usenet etiquette", have any idea why?
We may "put our responses" anywhere we choose, we may shape our posts any
way we like, that is what freedom of speech and expression is all
about. Or are we not allowed to? By whom? Who's the authority to prescribe
the only possible rules of Usenet communication, who's the Censor to
determine the only 'proper' style of Internet discussion?
If you're indeed dead earnest about the 'scientific' style, then go for
it, be its 'dogmatic' slave and use it as much as you like in the
"peer-reviewed literature". And please, feel free to abide by the
'serious' rules even here but do not try to impose them on everybody
else. For our preferences may differ widely from yours, go figure. It is
as simple as that, it is called 'bio-diversity' in nature or variety of
ideas and opinions on how we communicate in Internet.
As far as your persistent invocation of the "peer-reviewed literature" or
lack thereof, I still consider it a "special effect" (or "poor usenet
etiquette"), you know why? Because you concentrate on the personality of
the author and not on what she has written (the "recent work"--the product
of last seven years). Your 'polite' remarks (and "wondering" whether her
book were "real research") steer the dialogue in a misguided direction,
making it a discussion not about contents (the "real research":) but about
appearances (like "publications", "credentials", "research"
certificates:). To be honest I see no reason for this fashionable
obsession with neat research biographies and tidy long lists of
publications, do only such people deserve our respect and attention?
So far, I see nothing to respond to.
Do you know what Albert Einstein's research credentials were in 1905 --
before his first article "On a heuristic point of view concerning the
production and transformation of light" (for which he received the Nobel
Prize in 1921)? The answer is zero, no "peer-reviewed publications" prior
to that.
Yes? But that was a peer-reviewed publication, was it not? Everyone
needs to have a first one.
Or take Darwin, for that matter, can you guess his scientific
credentials before "The origin of species"? Well, he has published several
narratives surveying the voyages on board of "Her Majesty's ships
Adventure and Beagle".
And many other publications and papers. You are incorrect. Though I have
to say that journals weren't as big a factor in science then as they are
now.
And the only official degree he hold prior to that
was not in biology, go figure, but for a clergyman in the Church of
England. Actually, if you soberly think about it, compared to them
professor Joan Roughgarden's achievements so far should make her much
worthier of your scientific attention: she's a biologist in a leading
university with many publications in recognised journals.
I see no point to any of that either.
On Tue, 25 May 2004, John Harshman wrote:
Ann wrote:
Hi John,
For your information: top-posting is considered poor usenet ettiquette.
Put your responses after the stuff you are responding to.
let me first thank you for your thought provoking comments from 19 May
and later. Alas, I'm afraid I'll have to join Earle's opinion that your
'friendly questions' were in fact no questions but "just arm-waving"
"insinuations" or mere performance for the Usenet 'crowd'.
They weren't friendly questions. I had serious doubts about
Roughgarden's ideas. Still do.
I mean, ask
yourself what was the genuine purpose of those special effects:
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's
published on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any
real research involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
John, 18 May 2004
And did you really need Earle for the link with Joan's "research"
credentials and "peer-reviewed publications". By the way the same link
was provided in the opening post of the thread (quickly dismissed by a
simple "[snip]", e.g. in your 19 May post:), it was in the very first
paragraph:
The 'new' challenge is Joan Roughgarden's
(http://www.stanford.edu/group/roughlab/rough.html) "Evolution's
Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"
published this month by University of California Press ($27.50).
Here is Chapter 7 on "Female Choice":
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139/10139.ch07.html. Below I
also attach in full her interview ("Roar of the rainbow warrior")
with the Financial Times newspaper from last weekend May 15/16 (page
W3), I found it rather intriguing and funny.
Ann, 18 May 2004
Since your first reply came mighty fast I sort of expected you could
have 'overlooked' this 'unimportant details' and instead gone straight
for the 'meat' -- the 'juicy' interview conducted by a complete layman
(as the journalist honestly admitted:). Note also that "not having read
the book" is no excuse, not even a serious argument, go figure :).
Moreover, in order "to read [a sample of] the book" you needed no
"access to BIOSIS",
That's not the point of access to BIOSIS. The point was to figure out
what she has published on this in the peer-reviewed literature. Unless I
missed it, she never referenced herself in that sample chapter. Is it
really true that she has published (before the book) nothing on this
subject?
not even buy it but just click on the second link
above and "read"... read before you reply, read before launching cheap
personal attacks, read before "you wonder". It is a complete chapter
(perhaps not the best one, but still:) of "Dr. Roughgarden's recent
work" that "seems to have something to do with sexual selection...or
any of the matters being discussed".
That's not what I mean by "recent work". This chapter is a review. It
does at least show she's familiar with the literature, though I would
consider it a very selective choice of papers used to make her
points. Animal sexual systems are extremely diverse, and there is a
system to make any point you would like to. Different species have sex
and/or pair-bonds for all sorts of reasons.
But what I meant by "recent work" would be actual research or
theoretical papers on this subject, done by her or at least published
with her as one of the authors. The apparent absence of such work
puzzles me extremely. One explanation is that I just haven't found it,
which is why the request about BIOSIS.
Do you have some sort of personal stake in this? You seem seriously het
up, and I don't know why.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
18 May 2004 08:11:08 PM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40AA0138.3070502@pacbell.net>...
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
I wonder aloud whether this could be just another area in which we find
diversity - some species select mates on the basis of genetic traits,
others on the basis of circumstance, and still others on some combination
of both. Roughgarden ponders this for a few seconds before breaking into a
wide smile: "I guess it could turn out that Darwin is right on some
species and wrong on others. But as a debating position at the moment I am
claiming that Darwin is wrong on all of them and I am right on all of
them." It is a bold claim - and she knows it.
"If you talk about gender and sexuality the conversation always gets very
complex and political. If you talk about animals, people ask about
humans. If you talk about humans, people ask about testosterone. Once you
start talking about whether homosexuality is adaptive or not, and whether
there is a gene for it or not, you get into the idea that biotechnology
could get rid of homosexuality by eliminating the gene. As a society we
like to pathologise diversity. That is very dangerous."
I read this and was struck that an educated person can have such a
fundamental misunderstanding about evolution. It seems as though she is
taking the position that evolution is purpose-driven, in this case to
propagate the species, and that Darwinism therefore discounts homosexuality.
She can study further, but she is more likely to find the roots of
bigotry in other places than biology. Since homosexuality doesn't harm
the species as a whole, there is no reason for natural selection to
select against it. Darwinism would seem to be neutral with regards to a
value system towards homosexuality.
This paragraph seems to incorporate a fundamental misunderstanding of
evolution, if you ask me. Natural selection says nothing about harming
"the species as a whole". It's all about individual reproductive
success. If homosexuality reduces an individual's reproductive success,
it's selected against. If it doesn't, it isn't. (Assuming there is
anything genetic to select, and ignoring any complicating factors like
kin selection or pleiotropy.) Nothing about "species as a whole".
I don't think this is completely correct. I agree that if
homosexuality reduced and indivudual's reproductive success, it would
*tend* to be selected against. But evolution as a whole doesn't work
at the individual level - it works at the population level. For
example, in many animal populations there are more males than are
needed to continue the species, such as a mature male deer having a
"harem" of females. In such a situation, there would be less pressure
for the population to select against exclusively homosexual behavior.
Is Roughgarden using the same tactics as creationists, stating "Since I
don't like what I perceive to be the implications of Darwinism, then
Darwinism must be wrong?"
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's published
on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any real research
involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
18 May 2004 08:26:00 PM |
|
|
VoiceOfReason wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<40AA0138.3070502@pacbell.net>...
Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
I wonder aloud whether this could be just another area in which we find
diversity - some species select mates on the basis of genetic traits,
others on the basis of circumstance, and still others on some combination
of both. Roughgarden ponders this for a few seconds before breaking into a
wide smile: "I guess it could turn out that Darwin is right on some
species and wrong on others. But as a debating position at the moment I am
claiming that Darwin is wrong on all of them and I am right on all of
them." It is a bold claim - and she knows it.
"If you talk about gender and sexuality the conversation always gets very
complex and political. If you talk about animals, people ask about
humans. If you talk about humans, people ask about testosterone. Once you
start talking about whether homosexuality is adaptive or not, and whether
there is a gene for it or not, you get into the idea that biotechnology
could get rid of homosexuality by eliminating the gene. As a society we
like to pathologise diversity. That is very dangerous."
I read this and was struck that an educated person can have such a
fundamental misunderstanding about evolution. It seems as though she is
taking the position that evolution is purpose-driven, in this case to
propagate the species, and that Darwinism therefore discounts homosexuality.
She can study further, but she is more likely to find the roots of
bigotry in other places than biology. Since homosexuality doesn't harm
the species as a whole, there is no reason for natural selection to
select against it. Darwinism would seem to be neutral with regards to a
value system towards homosexuality.
This paragraph seems to incorporate a fundamental misunderstanding of
evolution, if you ask me. Natural selection says nothing about harming
"the species as a whole". It's all about individual reproductive
success. If homosexuality reduces an individual's reproductive success,
it's selected against. If it doesn't, it isn't. (Assuming there is
anything genetic to select, and ignoring any complicating factors like
kin selection or pleiotropy.) Nothing about "species as a whole".
I don't think this is completely correct. I agree that if
homosexuality reduced and indivudual's reproductive success, it would
*tend* to be selected against. But evolution as a whole doesn't work
at the individual level - it works at the population level. For
example, in many animal populations there are more males than are
needed to continue the species, such as a mature male deer having a
"harem" of females. In such a situation, there would be less pressure
for the population to select against exclusively homosexual behavior.
Evolution may work at the population level, but natural selection works
at the individual level. That is, change in the frequency of alleles (a
population parameter) nevertheless happens one death/reproduction at a
time. Harm or benefit to the species as a whole doesn't enter into it.
In the example you give, homosexual behavior would not harm the
reproductive success of the younger males, simply because they're not
getting any anyway. If it happened to be taking time away from efforts
that actually could result in success, it would be selected against. The
population doesn't select against or for anything. The way to think of
it is that particular individuals either have greater or less (or no
different) reproductive success because of their behaviors or other traits.
Is Roughgarden using the same tactics as creationists, stating "Since I
don't like what I perceive to be the implications of Darwinism, then
Darwinism must be wrong?"
Possibly. You'd have to read the book. I wonder how much she's published
on this in the actual peer-reviewed literature. Any real research
involved here? Or is it all just arm-waving?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's sexual selection - demolition |
18 May 2004 11:02:36 PM |
|
|
John Harshman wrote:
This paragraph seems to incorporate a fundamental misunderstanding of
evolution, if you ask me. Natural selection says nothing about harming
"the species as a whole". It's all about individual reproductive
success. If homosexuality reduces an individual's reproductive success,
it's selected against. If it doesn't, it isn't. (Assuming there is
anything genetic to select, and ignoring any complicatin | | | |
