Text 1279, 264 rader
Skriven 2004-12-31 15:03:00 av Jim McGinn (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: McGinn's disproof of
================================



Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> In article <cq341u$1kfj$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> Jim McGinn <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> >> In article <cp0ptg$192u$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> >> Jim McGinn <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >JMc:
> >> >> > Hamilton's arguments don't work.  They just appear
> >> >> > to work because those that think they do work are
> >> >> > using Hamilton's arguments themselves to verify its
> >> >> > conceptual accuracy.
> >>
> [me]
> >> This is the same old objection from McGinn.  We go
> >> through the same process every time.  We come up with a
> >> simple model, in which it can be shown that Hamilton's
> >> relatedness measure is the one to use to derive the
> >> condition under which a rare allele predisposing to an
> >> altruistic behavior will be expected to increase in
> >> frequency.
> >
> [McGinn:]
> >Your argument is, an has always been, that we should take your word
> >that this is what it shows.  I choose not to take your word for it.
>
> Nonsense.  I can define a model in which Hamilton's rules work.  But
> when I try to do so, McGinn diverts the discussion onto whether these
> assumptions "lack causal validity".  It turns out that he objects to
> all models that anyone has ever used in theoretical population
genetics!
> In other words, his statements about Hamilton not understanding
> Hamilton's concepts is not a statement just about Hamilton.  It
applies
> to all theoretical population geneticists!
>
> [So I said:]
> >> McGinn's objection is not specifically to anything
> >> Hamilton did.  It is to all results derived from models
> >> in theoretical population genetics, all of them, including
> >> Hardy-Weinberg proportions.  So why don't we discuss
> >> Hard-Weinberg proportions?
> >
> [McGinn:]
> >Go for it.
>
> If I list a set of assumptions and show that Hardy-Weinberg
> proportions spring from them (and that is easy with a simple
> discrete-generations random mating model), does that mean that
> McGinn is either going to agree, or is going to show that these
> assumptions do not in fact lead to those conclusions?
>
> If so, I'd be happy to make the argument.
>
> Or is McGinn just going to demand that I show that these
> assumptions have "causal validity"?  i.e., that those assumptions
> are true in real life?  Of course the model will at best be an
> approximation to real life.  All theoretical population genetics
> models are.  They therefore won't be literally true in real life.
> The models can be made to be better and better approximations to
> real life, but will always be loftily dismissed by McGinn.
>
> Is there a single model, anywhere in theoretical population
> genetics, that McGinn thinks has this "causal validity"?  (If so,
> then perhaps we are misunderstanding McGinn's argument.)
>
> If there is not a model that he likes, then all he is doing is
> demanding that our arguments be exact descriptions of real life.
> In which case he is off by himself (as no one else here seems to
> agree with his arguments).  And in opposition to the entire
> development of theoretical population genetics over the last
> century.
>
> And of course, I repeat, McGinn's
Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> In article <cq341u$1kfj$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> Jim McGinn <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> >> In article <cp0ptg$192u$1@darwin.ediacara.org>,
> >> Jim McGinn <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >JMc:
> >> >> > Hamilton's arguments don't work.  They just appear
> >> >> > to work because those that think they do work are
> >> >> > using Hamilton's arguments themselves to verify its
> >> >> > conceptual accuracy.
> >>
> [me]
> >> This is the same old objection from McGinn.  We go
> >> through the same process every time.  We come up with a
> >> simple model, in which it can be shown that Hamilton's
> >> relatedness measure is the one to use to derive the
> >> condition under which a rare allele predisposing to an
> >> altruistic behavior will be expected to increase in
> >> frequency.
> >
> [McGinn:]
> >Your argument is, an has always been, that we should take your word
> >that this is what it shows.  I choose not to take your word for it.
>
> Nonsense.  I can define a model in which Hamilton's rules work.  But
> when I try to do so, McGinn diverts the discussion onto whether these
> assumptions "lack causal validity".

Okay, your point?

> It turns out that he objects to
> all models that anyone has ever used in theoretical population
genetics!

What do you mean, "It turns out . .  ?"  Why don't you explain to us
the telepathic techniques you employed to make this determination.

> In other words, his statements about Hamilton not understanding
> Hamilton's concepts is not a statement just about Hamilton.  It
applies
> to all theoretical population geneticists!

Yeah, you're like a pack of dogs.

>
> [So I said:]
> >> McGinn's objection is not specifically to anything
> >> Hamilton did.  It is to all results derived from models
> >> in theoretical population genetics, all of them, including
> >> Hardy-Weinberg proportions.  So why don't we discuss
> >> Hard-Weinberg proportions?
> >
> [McGinn:]
> >Go for it.
>
> If I list a set of assumptions and "show that Hardy-Weinberg
> proportions spring from them

Times' a-wastin.  Git too it.  Please list your set of assumptions that
show that "show that Hardy-Weinberg proportions spring from them,"
whatever that means.

(and that is easy with a simple
> discrete-generations random mating model),

What is "that?"

does that mean that
> McGinn is either going to agree, or is going to show that these
> assumptions do not in fact lead to those conclusions?

I do not know that I am capable of agreeing with something which, it
seems, is comprised on a list which you've yet to provide.  Or so it
seems from what you've revealed above in this post.

I for one will be especially pleased to see the fibers from the thread
with which you weaved the cloth from which you tailored the kings new
clothes.

Keep working on the list.  Fibers that thin must be especially
throublesome to spin.  I suspect you'll be working on this list for a
long, long time.

In the meantime maybe you can explain what you meant when you claimed
that you are going to show that Hardy-Weinberg, "sprang," from this
list you've yet to provide.  Why do you not just present the list and
let us decide whether anybody or anything is springing from it?

> If so, I'd be happy to make the argument.

I'd be happy too.  Well.  Now that we got that out of the way, why
don't you go ahead an make your argument?

> Or is McGinn just going to demand that I show that these
> assumptions have "causal validity"?

Am I going to continue to scrutinize your assumptions?  Is this your
question?  If so the answer is, yes.

> i.e., that those assumptions
> are true in real life?

Once again, you are attempting to engage me about a set of a
assumptions (what you, above, described as a "list") that you have yet
to provide.

> Of course the model will at best be an
> approximation to real life.

What model? Why don't you present it and let us decide, rather than
mumbling too yourself in the corner.

> All theoretical population genetics
> models are.  They therefore won't be literally true in real life.
> The models can be made to be better and better approximations to
> real life, but will always be loftily dismissed by McGinn.

I don't see how I can be said to, loftily or otherwise, have dismissed
models that have yet to be presented to me.  In fact, I do not know how
I could possibly do something like that even if I wanted to.  To the
best of my knowledge of I am not in the habit of dismissing things of
which I am yet to be aware.  [Wow, I just has a "Mark Twain" moment
there.  {See my sig.}]

> Is there a single model, anywhere in theoretical population
> genetics, that McGinn thinks has this "causal validity"?

Well, I don't know what you mean by this.  But I would hereby like to
go on record as being generally opposed to theoretical notions that
spring from lists that have not been provided.  I'm funny this way.

> (If so,
> then perhaps we are misunderstanding McGinn's argument.)
> If there is not a model that he likes, then all he is doing is
> demanding that our arguments be exact descriptions of real life.
> In which case he is off by himself (as no one else here seems to
> agree with his arguments).

But I am not arguing.  I'm providing you the opportunity to explain
what it is you think and why you think it.  I would think you'd be
flattered by the attention.

> And in opposition to the entire
> development of theoretical population genetics over the last
> century.

I'm not opposed to theoretical population genetics.  (Maybe you can
explain to us why you seem to think I am.)  I'm merely a proponent for
truth and accuracy.  Surely you are not opposed to truth and accuracy
(or maybe you are?).

> And of course, I repeat, McGinn's argument has nothing specific
> to do with Hamilton, or Hamilton's relatedness quantities, or
> Hamilton's argument, or Hamilton's alleged misunderstandings, or
> Hamilton's alleged mistakes.

If it is what you believe then you should present an argument to that
effect.

> McGinn's objections apply with equal
> force or, more properly, lack of force, to Hardy and Weinberg.

My objections to what?  (I do not object to your list.  I just object
to your insistence that I should except it sight unseen.)

> So we're waiting to hear McGinn tell us what model in theoretical
> population genetics he would approve of.  And waiting.  And waiting
....

I'm flattered that you are looking for my approval.  But why don't you
just present your list and let the chips fall where they may.

Afterall, it's just science.

Jim
--To the best of my knowledge of I am not in the
habit of dismissing things of which I am yet to 
be aware.
---
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 12/31/04 3:03:47 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)