I grow up under a military junta (1967-74, Greece) and I do understand the need for democratic speech.
But my question was about alternatives to a scientific theory, not about freedom of ideas. I hope you don’t consider them at the same level. Interpreting natural phenomena is not about opinions.
The Ryan/Cairn story is a quite interesting one. Neither fully explored the problem reported. Nor the problem was fully studied yet. I think it’s more valuable to spend time for full exploration of the events driving to the observed results rather then spending time to build alternatives.
What would be the specific point(s) where these results contradict ‘darwinism’ and make it necessary to build an alternative?
It’s quite easy to build hypothesis, say the they could explain things and that it would be interesting to test them, and conclude that it will be quite difficult to build tests that would be able to in/validate them.
I will follow you on the consideration that the way science is financed today leads to a lot of nonsense and that the degree of specialization tends to limit the way research is performed.
‘Questioning expert’s « points of view »‘ is my middle name, including those of McFadden (an easy example for me to showcase) and the absence of such a critical approach from Jean is the very first thing I « charge » him.
You said that you didn’t explored the matter further than the « expert’s opinion » concerning this particular point.
Please, consider this particular case as an illustration that I really do not easily accept ‘ex cathedra’ assertions if they aren’t thoroughly counter-expertised. And that I’m against any kind of servility toward « experts ». I understand that they may be mistaken even in there field of expertise and his is understandable. Mistakes happen.
But on the other hand, lousy interpretations of science as the ones Jean makes in his book are much more toxic. He present himself as a non specialist based on what specialist said (including opinions presented as facts, of assertions that are manifestly false) and tries to support an ideology. That’s the worst behavior to be expected from one stating that he done a « scientific enquiry » during a period of 20 years and presents the state of the art and conclusions.
I understand that you already read the chapter XI (as Jean says that you didn’t had anything to object to the content). If you have time to spend over this, give it a second read, being critical and not relying on « experts opinions », neither at Jean’s « scientific enquiry » results. I’m curious to know which of the criticisms against « darwinism » you would support.
Concerning your essay I have a single observation. You are talking about « stability », biological stability. I never encountered such a thing. I rather spended a lot of time and efforts fighting biological instability and variation.
You could improve the quality of your text by explicitly defining what you mean by stability and what the limits of your definition are.