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.
WRE>Come again? This looks like a complete non sequitur to
WRE>Kevin's statement.
MBG>Like I said to Kevin, I'm trying to figure out how Wexler
MBG>becoming an insider was so important. According to
MBG>Kevin, insiders already existed who imparted to Wexler
MBG>her passion. This means that Wexler was essentially
MBG>irrelevant, as others already had the passion and skills
MBG>(they would have made the same discovery without
MBG>her, as Kevin implies). Now, on the other hand, if Wexler
MBG>became an insider and was then able to poke holes in the
MBG>arguments of her critics such that other insiders were convinced
MBG>and decided to help her, then I could understand the
MBG>importance of her becoming the insider.
What does Mike's understanding have to do with Wexler either
having or not having "insider" status?
MBG>Remember, we are talking about a specific discovery that is
MBG>now a specific historical event (and I'm someone who believes
MBG>science is not this inevitable impersonal progression towards
MBG>a goal, but also involves the contingent (and unique) dynamics
MBG>characterized by chance and human personalities).
What I'm remembering is Kevin's claim and Mike's specification
of what looks like a completely orthognonal attribute to
append to Kevin's claim as if it were a necessary condition.
MBG>I understand fully that in order to map a gene, you
MBG>need to walk and talk the "shop-talk." But was
MBG>Wexler's contribution really some "insider insight"
MBG>that led her to think the gene would be mapped in
MBG>a couple of years? I don't think so.
But what does this have to do with making the distinction
of whether she became an "insider" or not? I don't see its
necessity to the endeavor to show any such thing.
MBG>Her contribution was that she wasn't talked out of doing the
MBG>experiment (and I would argue this is because she didn't have
MBG>the experience of just how tedious and troublesome gene
MBG>mapping can be).
I still don't see how this places a necessary burden upon
Kevin as Mike outlines it above. Basically, Mike is
specifying what would be necessary to disprove Mike's
conjecture, and is not addressing Kevin's statement at all.
MBG>As she herself writes:
MBG>"Our critics said "wait until a more detailed genetic map is
MBG>available, one with many more regularly spaced markers." This
MBG>is, of course, a much better strategy if you have the time to
MBG>wait·..In 1979, despite such sensible advise, we began
MBG>hunting for the Huntington's disease gene."
MBG>Note she says "despite such sensible advise." Why did
MBG>Wexler go to all that *trouble* to do something most experts
MBG>said would fail? Is everyone like this?
Like what? Who said anything about failing? It certainly did
not appear in the quoted comment.
MBG>Wexler never refuted the arguments of her critics. On the
MBG>contrary, she acknowledged they were valid, but nevertheless,
MBG>moved on.
WRE>OK. In some of the work I'm collaborating on now, we have an
WRE>extremely complex equipment setup that involves high-speed
WRE>video, endoscopes, pressure catheters, and hydrophones. Some
WRE>of our colleagues may have believed that nothing would come of
WRE>our approach. Others may not have pursued it due to the
WRE>technical difficulty of the task. We keep reminding ourselves
WRE>that if it were easy, someone else would already have done it.
WRE>"Insider" status does not imply buying into a monolithic
WRE>mindset.
MBG>Since I am not making an all-or-none argument, I fail to
MBG>see what is relevant about your example.
Mike is certainly attempting to saddle Kevin's argument with
a difficulty that it does not necessitate. Let's reiterate it.
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.
And I say that Mike needs to show why Kevin must needs do
any such thing. It is not implicit in Kevin's statement.
People differ. They differ in their technical abilities; they
differ in their personal interests; they differ in their
dedication to specific research topics. My example shows that
despite most other researchers in our field not doing what we
are doing (AFAIK, there aren't any others doing what we are
doing), we still are going ahead and doing it. Is the
relevance to the Wexler case really so hard to grasp? The
mere fact that insiders had not yet mapped out the HD gene
does *not* mean that every single one of them believed the
task to be impossible. The mere fact that the task would be
made more difficult by the absence of regularly spaced genetic
markers does not mean that every single insider therefore
believed the task to be impossible. The mere fact that anyone
might recognize that a particular line of research would have
long odds of success does not mean that every single person
will pass it by. I don't see that it matters to Kevin's
argument whether the odds were long or short or whether the
majority of insiders considered the project to be achievable
or not. What matters to Kevin's argument is whether Wexler
did achieve a non-trivial competence in the relevant field
before accomplishing her research.
MBG>Do you think I am arguing that the outsider's perspective is
MBG>necessary? No. Just that sometimes it *is* useful and does
MBG>help. I don't understand why this is so controversial, but
MBG>perhaps it's like stepping into some street gang's turf.
I did not find anything particularly controversial about it.
I just found Mike's insistence upon a necessary condition for
Kevin's argument to be rather bizarrely wrong.
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.
WRE>When I posted here recently concerning the invidious
WRE>comparison that Dembski was reported to have used (and which
WRE>Jay Richards confirmed) concerning the Soviet Union and
WRE>Darwinian evolutionary theory, I don't recall anybody here
WRE>getting exercized over Dembski being a bit confrontational.
WRE>There have been plenty of confrontational ploys that have
WRE>passed through this list without attracting any especial
WRE>notice, much less disapproval.
MBG>From reading your messages, you do seem to have this
MBG>on-going personality war with Dembski that I am not
MBG>personally interested in.
I think there is a difference between criticism of someone's
ideas, and criticism of the person. I have had a favorable
impression of Dembski since meeting him at the 1997 NTSE
conference. But that doesn't mean that I cannot sharply
disagree on ideas and means of expression. I don't intend
to engage in a "personality war" with Dembski, and Dembski's
actions make it clear that he is not interested in such with
me, either.
MBG>I am simply expressing what a bummer it can be to "fight" over
MBG>trivial points.
I guess it depends upon what one sees as trivial.
MBG>I get quickly bored with people who need to go on the 'attack'
MBG>as they quickly start viewing people that disagree with them
MBG>as 'the enemy.' I'm starting to realize that in the
MBG>information age, it is harder and harder to find people to
MBG>disagree with pleasantly. Maybe it says something about human
MBG>nature.
Maybe so, maybe not. But my view is that one gets to take
one's own lumps for bad arguments put forward, and should not
be surprised to find criticism over various and sundry points.
A nonsequitur is pretty easy to generate -- one need only
drop a few necessary steps of logic, which one might think
plainly obvious to anyone, in order to create one.
Wesley