> >In your latest response to me you claim that it was very definately NOT
your
> >argument that Wexler pioneered the idea that "mapping the HD gene would
not
> >be a long-shot"; now you are making that exact argument to try to support
> >your position.
Me:
> No I am not. I'm trying to put my finger on the importance of
> Wexler becoming an insider. It was not becoming an insider
> that led her to proceed by finding holes in the arguments of
> those who warned her it would take 50 years to find the gene.
Kevin:
>She only found those holes because she believed it could be done
>faster, and she came to believe that only because she read journal
>articles by "insiders" who suggested that it was possbile and explained
>why.
Oh really? Just what journal articles did she read? What ARE
these arguments which explained why mapping the HD gene
would not take a very long time? You are making truth claims
(not statements of opinions), thus you should be able to back
them up.
Me:
> And her contribution is that she proceeded when so many
> others were naysayers.
Kevin:
>Then her contribution was not unique, considering the "insiders"
>who also were proceeding "when so many others were naysayers".
I suppose this all depends on whether these "insiders" would
have proceeded in the same fashion if Wexler had not existed.
Kevin:
> >As I explained before, however, Wexler did NOT pioneer that
> >idea;
Me:
> Nobody said or implied she did.
Kevin:
>You did in your original one-paragraph description of her accomplishment,
>and the wording of your statement -- "To do this, you'll need to show that
>Wexler's training led her to conclude that mapping the HD gene would not
>be a long-shot." -- also implies this very point; after all if she did not
get
>the idea from her training, then she had it before she started her training.
>That means she either got it from someone else, or she developed it on her
>own.
No, it means that Wexler recognized the arguments of her critics were
sound, and she proceeded not because she was able to find or come up
with good arguments showing the HD gene could be mapped quickly,
but because of her passion.
>The fact that you still will not acknowledge the fact that she got the idea
>from "insiders" whenever you say things like: "It was not becoming an
>insider that led her to proceed by finding holes in the arguments of those
>who warned her it would take 50 years to find the gene", that perpetuates
>the impression that you believe she came up with this idea all on her own
>and met nothing but opposition from "insiders" when she tried to pursue it.
If your arguments against me are merely based on your impressions about
what you think I am trying to say, we'll simply end up in the typical
"said so, did not" exchanges that go nowhere.
The facts are as follows:
1. Wexler was told by many experts in gene mapping that it would take
50 years to map the HD gene.
2. Wexler proceeded nevertheless.
You claim she proceeded because she learned from the insiders that
the "50 year" argument was flawed and thus "insider insight" provided
the rational basis for proceeding. But you can't cite the journal
articles nor can you cite the arguments she supposedly learned.
I maintain she proceeded because of her sense of passion, which,
IMO, remained intact because she did not have the previous experience
which told her just how irrational it would be to go looking for
the HD gene in the late 70s.
The ambiguity comes in when we realize that she did need to
at least collaborate with some insiders (who had the technical
skills) and she did need some basic understanding of genetics.
Once again, I am not saying that Wexler's status of an outsider
was essential to mapping genes, or that she developed the idea
of mapping on her own, but I do think that in this case, it
did contribute something substantial to *this* discovery.
Science is, after all, a *human* endeavor. Perhaps I shall
focus on this in more depth.
I'll deal with the rest later.
Mike