Re: Date limit set on first Americans

Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:42:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Wilkins)
> wrote:
...
> >> None of that has got anything to do with the point I made. For
> >> Darwin's work, either at the time it was published or in the preceding
> >> 25 years, THERE WERE NO PEER REVIEWERS. Had it been submitted for peer
> >> review it was more likely to have been rejected than published.
> >
> >Totally wrong. There was no formal peer review system in 1858, but the
> >Origin was peer-reviewed by Charles Lyell, Joseph Hooker, Asa Gray and a
> >host of people to whom Darwin had revealed his views over the years, all
> >of whom were leading researchers in the field. Even had Owen been chosen
> >to review it by the publisher, it would have been accepted for
> >publication. Perhaps Agassiz might have rejected it, but even then I
> >doubt he would have done so for personal reasons, and may even have
> >suggested publishing so it could be exposed to criticism.
> 
> I stand corrected. Presumably that is the reason Darwin took 25 years
> to publish? Did it take 25 years to convince his friends that his
> ideas had merit? 

No, I'd suggest it had a good deal more to do with his being a
naturally cautious man who wasn't keen on the public outrage that he
correctly anticipated would follow the publishing of his work.

Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
selection...
> 
> Lyell was a geologist and primarily could only have leant a
> sympathetic ear. Hooker and Gray were botanists and could perhaps
> after 25 years have understod where Darwin was coming from.
> 
> I agree Agassiz remained one of Darwin's leading critics and would not
> have approved if the book had been submitted to him in advance for
> review.
> 
> However, none of them knew anything about evolution ...

I can't agree with that. There had been a growing movement for a
century questioning the immutability of species. The movement was
driven in no small part by geology & the development of the concept of
deep time. Lyell was a central figure in this.

Darwin's genius wasn't inventing the idea of evolution, it was
describing the mechanism.

> ... and would not have
> qualified as peer reviewers in the strict sense as it is applied today
> (always excepting Philip (I can review anything) Deitiker).

The strict sense is what John took issue with. It is inaccurate for
you to say that Darwin's work was not peer-reviewed.
> >
> >In any case, the Origin was as peer reviewed as it was possible to get
> >in thos days - don't import the standards of today into the middle of
> >the 19thC before the professional system of science funded by government
> >had been established.
> >
... [snip crypto-political palaver]

Ross Macfarlane