REVIEWER:
Reviewer #1: I recommend rejecting this paper because of the existence of three major flaws: one logical and two technical. While I think, the topic could be of interest, I think it is very badly formulated in this paper.
(1) The logical flaw concerns the justification of the paper as well as the reasoning behind the study and the introduction of the dilemma. To explain my purpose I will first talk about the cancer-smoke example, as the author does in the paper, and then I will focus on homosexuality.
Let's assume there is an observed positive correlation between the fact of smoking (I'll call S) and lung cancer occurrence (I'll call C). As in any correlation studies, it is impossible to say which one of the variable is the cause and which one is the consequence. Furthermore, as Fisher (1958) pointed out, it is even possible that a third variable, let's call it G, which is not known, can be the cause of both lung cancer and smoking. A genetic factor G can be the cause of the occurrence of lung cancer and of the urge of smoking without any causal relationships between smoking and lung cancer. The fisher's (1958) dilemma is caused by the fact that the only fact one knows is that there is a correlation between smoking and cancer. Can I smoke if I know it gives pleasure to me, that it can kill me if G does not exist (that is if there is a direct causal relationship between smoking and cancer) or it can not increase my probability to have a cancer if G exists? The dilemma is
caused because there are two exclusive situations, G exists or not, and we can not decide about it with only knowledge of correlation between S and C.
If G exists, there are two groups of people (two for simplicity) in a given population: one with the genetic factor causing cancer and smoking (let's call it G+) and one without it (G-). The existence of the genetic factor in G+ group will cause them to smoke and to have lung cancer (or more precisely will let them have a greater probability than G- to smoke and have lung cancer ). However, I am afraid the author completely misled the reasoning in page 3 line 20 when he says "it is better not to smoke... because it makes it less probable that the carcinogenic genetic factors are present...". The fact of smoking does not change the status of a given individual: an individual from G+ does not become G- because he does not smoke. The genetic factors G+ causes the fact of smoking and not the converse: smoking is not the cause of genetic factors G+.
To my mind it is a major logical flaw because an identical reasoning is done for the correlation between female fertility (I call F) and male homosexuality (I call H): page 4 line 12: "... it is better to become homosexual since... this makes more probable that the genetic factors for a larger than average maternal family are present...". Once again I think the author is completely misleading. If there is a genetic factor G explaining the positive correlation between F and H, any individual in G+ group will have a greater probability to be homosexual and to be relative with females which have a greater fertility than individuals in G-. It is not because an individual decides to become homosexual that it increases the probability that his female relatives have the genetic factor G+. Further in the text, page 5 line 7, the author even says that "it is clear that becoming homosexual still increases the animal's hope that his family will be larger than average". I do not see
what data allow the author to say "it is clear" and once again, becoming homosexual does not change or ensure the presence of any genetic factor in female relatives.
Loading...
WHAT, SPEAK UP .-.
AJBenoughsaid 10 months ago
Its good!
smpaloma02 1 year ago