One thing I’ve been struck by, in the responses to my repeated attacks on the zombie ideas that comprise the core of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis, is that nobody’s come forward with a full-on defense of those ideas–direct counterarguments to any of my arguments. I mean, I’ve come out and said that three hugely-famous, widely-cited ideas, which are in all the textbooks, are flat-out wrong, indeed so wrong that I’m perfectly comfortable not just arguing against them but making zombie jokes about them. And I’ve basically gotten no serious pushback! What disagreement I’ve gotten has mostly been either requests for clarification, or based on misunderstanding of my original posts or of the relevant theoretical literature (as evidenced by the fact that, when I clear things up, people stop disagreeing with me).
I’m happy to keep clarifying matters and addressing residual doubts, for folks who aren’t yet entirely convinced by my arguments (so keep those questions coming in the comments). But what would really be fun would be to hear from someone who just thinks I’m totally wrong, and is willing to explain why. Surely there’s somebody out there who’s willing to go to the mat for the IDH zombies?
If so, you’d better speak up. Because the available evidence says that I’m a pretty good zombie slayer. And I have no plans to stop anytime soon.
Or are the core ideas of the IDH not so much zombies, as naked emperors, whose nakedness is obvious to everyone once it’s pointed out?
p.s. Nobody’s come on to this blog with wholehearted (or even any) defenses of r-K selection or the unimodal diversity-productivity relationship either. Where are the zombies, and why aren’t they fighting back? I haven’t actually seen many zombie movies, but it wasn’t my impression that zombies avoid destruction by going into hiding when attacked, in the hopes that the attackers will just put away their shotguns and go home. ;-)