Re: Reply to Phil Nicholls.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: pseudoscience and fossils"
• Previous message: Joseph E Boxhorn: "Re: Reply to Phil Nicholls."
• Maybe in reply to: Elaine Morgan: "Reply to Phil Nicholls."
• Next in thread: Bryce Harrington: "Re: Reply to Phil Nicholls."

> [deletions]
>
> > S.J. Gould proposed his radical new
> > theory on punctuated equalibrium in a peer-reviewed science journal.
>
> Are you sure about this? My understanding is that the original proposal
> made for punctuated equilibrium was in a book chapter (reference given
> below) rather than a journal article.

> > [more deletions]

Does it really matter? It seems to me that the real point is that
these ideas (and other revolutionary ones now accepted) were all
presented and argued in the peer reviewed journals and that thru
this process they have gain the acceptance they have. This has not
been done by the AAH to my knowledge.

William C. Wilson

• Next message: Phillip Bigelow: "Re: pseudoscience and fossils"
• Previous message: Joseph E Boxhorn: "Re: Reply to Phil Nicholls."
• Maybe in reply to: Elaine Morgan: "Reply to Phil Nicholls."
• Next in thread: Bryce Harrington: "Re: Reply to Phil Nicholls."