> I don't have a problem with considering Wexler an outsider
> who made a contribution.
Neither would I, if we were restricting ourselves to the confines of the
scientific method. The problem is that cases like this can be misconstrued
so as to argue that even people like Phillip Johnson can make a significant
contribution to science -- despite his lack of knowledge, training and
experience in ANY scientific field.
Wesley's approach to this problem -- arguing that there is a fundamental
difference between "outsiders" like Wexler and "outsiders" like Johnson -- is
valid and should be pursued. At the same time I believe (rather immodestly)
that my approach -- arguing that at the time she made her contribution Wexler
was no longer an "outsider" and that in fact she actively became an "insider"
in order make that contribution -- is equally valid and should also be
pursued. By attacking the problem from both sides hopefully we can together
break it down.
Kevin L. O'Brien