[...]
MBG>Wexler was not *already* an expert in gene-mapping prior to
MBG>her 83 paper. Now, obviously, she needed the help of some
MBG>who were experts, but then we have a *symbiotic* relationship
MBG>and there is no reason to believe Wexler was unimportant.
[...]
I don't have a problem with considering Wexler an outsider
who made a contribution. I don't even particularly want to
argue over how much of a breakthrough it was. What I would
be interested in is if Mike can develop parallels with the
specific case at issue, that of Phillip E. Johnson and his
contributions to biology.
For example, perhaps a comparison of Wexler's grasp of the
literature with that of Johnson would yield some good
information. From Johnson, we find this claim about
published research:
[Quote]
Most of the professional scientific literature is available
in the premier scientific journals Nature and Science, the
most prestigious scientific organs in Britain and America
respectively, and at a somewhat more popular level in the
British New Scientist and the Scientific American.
[End Quote - PE Johnson, Darwin On Trial (2nd ed.), p.13]
Perhaps when Mike emails Wexler he could also ask her whether
she concurs that *most* of the professional scientific
literature is to be found in the pages of Nature and Science,
or reported popularly in New Scientist and Scientific
American. And how much head room over 50% exists?
Wesley