N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | This is another excellent example of what N.Wells considers to be academic excellence with "a grasp of the fundamentals in the fields you are trying to critique; standard terminology or decent redefinitions, including operational definitions; multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses; logically valid testable, falsifiable predictions; actual relevant evidence; answers for criticisms; ground-truthing for your model; and conclusions that are logically derived from your model as opposed to being ungrounded assertions." |
Stop lying about my opinions. My assessment about the Templeton grant is that those folk are arguing against a strawman-version of evolutionary biology (implying that they don't know their fundamentals or are overhyping their research and are therefore NOT exemplars of excellence), and that they are at risk of wanting to prove some strongly desired conclusions. The first part is consistent with what I've said to you and many times previously when we were both on ARN, that natural selection is very well documented but it is not the alpha and omega of evolutionary biology.
Those objections aside, the rest of the grantees' scientific programs appear to be involve good scientific procedures such as documenting evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses. I'm perfectly happy to have their ideas investigated scientifically, as I'm sure we still have stuff to learn about non-Darwinian processes in evolutionary change, so if Templeton wants to throw such a large amount of its money, I'm not strenuously objecting. The grantees have a much better chance of doing something worthwhile than you do, so the money is better spent on them than on you. This has nothing to do with you not being an academic, and everything to do with you not having many clues about what you are doing.
I'm very interested in hearing your responses to NoName's points above, incidentally. Please respond to them.
|
