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.
Wesley:
>Come again? This looks like a complete non sequitur to
>Kevin's statement.
Like I said to Kevin, I'm trying to figure out how Wexler
becoming an insider was so important. According to
Kevin, insiders already existed who imparted to Wexler
her passion. This means that Wexler was essentially
irrelevant, as others already had the passion and skills
(they would have made the same discovery without
her, as Kevin implies). Now, on the other hand, if Wexler
became an insider and was then able to poke holes in the
arguments of her critics such that other insiders were convinced
and decided to help her, then I could understand the
importance of her becoming the insider. Remember,
we are talking about a specific discovery that is now
a specific historical event (and I'm someone who
believes science is not this inevitable impersonal
progression towards a goal, but also involves the
contingent (and unique) dynamics characterized by chance
and human personalities).
I understand fully that in order to map a gene, you
need to walk and talk the "shop-talk." But was
Wexler's contribution really some "insider insight"
that led her to think the gene would be mapped in
a couple of years? I don't think so. Her contribution
was that she wasn't talked out of doing the experiment
(and I would argue this is because she didn't have the
experience of just how tedious and troublesome
gene mapping can be). As she herself writes:
"Our critics said "wait until a more detailed
genetic map is available, one with many more regularly spaced
markers." This is, of course, a much better strategy if you have
the time to wait·..In 1979, despite such sensible advise, we
began hunting for the Huntington's disease gene."
Note she says "despite such sensible advise." Why did
Wexler go to all that *trouble* to do something most experts
said would fail? Is everyone like this?
MBG>Wexler never refuted the arguments of her critics. On the
MBG>contrary, she acknowledged they were valid, but nevertheless,
MBG>moved on.
Wesley:
>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.
Since I am not making an all-or-none argument, I fail to
see what is relevant about your example. Do you think I
am arguing that the outsider's perspective is necessary?
No. Just that sometimes it *is* useful and does help.
I don't understand why this is so controversial, but
perhaps it's like stepping into some street gang's
turf.
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.
Wesley:
>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.
on-going personality war with Dembski that I am not
personally interested in. I am simply expressing what
a bummer it can be to "fight" over trivial points. I get
quickly bored with people who need to go on the 'attack'
as they quickly start viewing people that disagree with
them as 'the enemy.' I'm starting to realize that in the
information age, it is harder and harder to find people
to disagree with pleasantly. Maybe it says something
about human nature.
Mike