KLOB>At the same time I believe (rather immodestly) that my
KLOB>approach -- arguing that at the time she made her contribution
KLOB>Wexler was no longer an "outsider" and that in fact she
KLOB>actively became an "insider" in order make that contribution
KLOB>-- is equally valid and should also be pursued.
MBG>To do this, you'll need to show that Wexler's training led her
MBG>to conclude that mapping the HD gene would not be a long-shot.
Come again? This looks like a complete non sequitur to
Kevin's statement.
MBG>Wexler never refuted the arguments of her critics. On the
MBG>contrary, she acknowledged they were valid, but nevertheless,
MBG>moved on.
OK. In some of the work I'm collaborating on now, we have an
extremely complex equipment setup that involves high-speed
video, endoscopes, pressure catheters, and hydrophones. Some
of our colleagues may have believed that nothing would come of
our approach. Others may not have pursued it due to the
technical difficulty of the task. We keep reminding ourselves
that if it were easy, someone else would already have done it.
"Insider" status does not imply buying into a monolithic
mindset.
KLOB>By attacking the problem from both sides hopefully we can
KLOB>together break it down.
MBG>Oh boy, "attacking" things to "break it down" suggests that I
MBG>have stepped on someone's toes. Why everything has to be so
MBG>confrontational and war-like is sometimes depressing.
When I posted here recently concerning the invidious
comparison that Dembski was reported to have used (and which
Jay Richards confirmed) concerning the Soviet Union and
Darwinian evolutionary theory, I don't recall anybody here
getting exercized over Dembski being a bit confrontational.
There have been plenty of confrontational ploys that have
passed through this list without attracting any especial
notice, much less disapproval.
Wesley