Ironic...
>And neither was her passion or sense of urgency unique; had there
>been no "insider" who was equally passionate and
>had the same or a greater sense of urgency, her contribution never
>would have happened.
Mike: There is no need for a lab that was "equally passionate." The
really hard work comes in flying down to Venezuella, living
among the people, making the contacts, doing the interviews,
obtaining the samples, etc. It takes hard-core passion to sacrifice
like this. Bringing back the samples and putting someone to
work with blotting doesn't require as much passion.
Unsupported assertion.
>Obviously not all insiders predicted she would fail since she got
>the idea from insiders and was trained by insiders. And in point of fact you
>have not provided any evidence that any insider predicted she would fail.
Mike: I gave you the original quote earlier on:
"Needless to say, several knowledgeable scientists told us that we were
crazy to look for genes in this haphazard, hit-or-miss fashion. They
predicted it would take fifty years or longer to find our target."
Given the human life span, they were telling Wexler she would fail.
Did they? Perhaps you're interpreting this more in the light of your view of this argument?
>She believed she was right because she had confidence
>based on the support and training of sympathetic insiders that she would
>succeed.
Mike: No, it wasn't confidence. It was passion. Without Wexler, do you really
think these sympathetic insiders would have worked so hard in Venuzuella?
Pure speculation dear Mike. You are basing your argument on the assumption that only those who are affected by HD or running the risk could work hard in Venuzuella.
Kevin:
>Wexler's importance was only that she was in the right place at the right
>time. Had she not been, someone else would have done the work eventually.
Mike: The keyword is "eventually." I'm not talking in generic terms, I am
discussing what happened in the actual history of science.
Sure and the relevance of this is? How does this support your speculations about 'outsiders' not being passionate?
Me:
> Maybe, maybe not. But it's a good bet that if it wasn't for Wexler,
> we would not have made the amount of progress that has been
> made. I suppose I'm just the type who sees a human face behind
> science.
And yet you deny the human face to the outsiders by denying that they could be passionate?
Kevin:
>Again, you seem to be arguing that Wexler and only Wexler could have mapped
>the HD gene.
Mike: And of course I am not. It simply is a fact that Wexler is indeed the one
behind the mapping.
Duhh...
>There was nothing unique about Wexler that would have made this
>even remotely true. Wexler could accomplish what she did only because
>certain insiders had already laid the foundation.
Mike: And those insiders could only accomplish what they did because she
did all that hard work in Venezuella.
So they all worked together in symbiosis?
>Had she not been in the right place at the time, someone else would have
>stepped in to do the work, and we would be just as far along as we are now.
Mike: Such is your faith in the interchangeable worker bee.
Or your lack of faith in humanity?
Mike: Perhaps others can offer their opinions. Is science deterministic and
impersonal? Or does it also involve contingency and the personal, such
that our state of scientific knowledge would be different if certain
scientists had not been born?
Surely people's personal affairs contribute to science as does serendipity. But does this mean that science would not have advanced otherwise? Of course not.