Text 1097, 85 rader
Skriven 2004-12-19 06:16:00 av Jim McGinn (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Jim's Hamilton's rule
=================================



Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cpt9hn$ten$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > It just has to he reasonable.  It has to make sense.
> >
> > One approach you might take is that my objections to
> > it are themselves unreasonable.
>
> I think you are being quite sensible here.
>
> But you have to understand, many of us don't know what your
> objections are!  If you peruse your recent posts, I think that
> you will agree that you sneer far more often than you object.

I agree.  You'd have to go back to my older posts
to see my detailed objections.  And these would
only be comprehensible in the context of full
threads.  Not easy to do.  But then if you are
looking for something easy you'd do best to avoid
evolutionary theory altogether.

> References to the emperor's clothes are like references to
> Enron accountants.  They are not objections, they are expressions
> of outrage.  Whatever function such expressions serve in making
> you feel better, they are received as just so much noise.

Well, I suggest you do a search on "Emperor's clothes," and "mcginn" in
Google groups.  Then you might have a better understanding of what I'm
saying.  Hope this helps.

>
> The one objection that seems to be extractable from the recent
> noise is your apparent intuition that "relatedness" ought to be
> a summary encoding of the similarity between two individuals.
> Various of us have tried to address this objection by pointing
> out that "relatedness", as used in Hamilton's rule, involves
> two individuals PLUS A CONTEXT.  Our attempts have elicited only
> more sneers.

I think I know what post you are referring to.  (The one where you
employ "historical interest,"--to no good effect--as part of your
justification for one of Hamilton's assumptions.)  I did respond to
this but it seems to have disappeared into the ethernet.  (I post on
Google/groups.  Every once in a while I get a server error when I post.
When I do the post disappears and you have to start over.)  I intend
to get around to responding to it again.  To be honest, part of my
reluctance to respond to that post involves the rhetorical ploys you
employed in the context of your argument.  For example:

" . . . as it turns out, a fairly simple algebraic
combination of these two probabilities is all we need to
define a number "r"."

and

"Now comes an algebraic "coincidence". It turns out
that IBD relatedness is a very good approximation to the
"disproportionate representation"
relatedness that we discussed several paragraphs back."

These are not rational arguments for why your thinking is true.  These
are, as I indicated, rhetorical ploys for why we should just take your
word for it.

>
> If you wish to give us a chance to show that your objections are
> unreasonable, you will have to state clearly (again, perhaps -
> we have short memories) what those objections are.

You may have short memories, but the internet has a long (and perfect)
memory.  Look it up in Google Groups.

Regards,

Jim McGinn
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/19/04 6:16:52 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)