Text 899, 121 rader
Skriven 2004-11-29 06:19:00 av William Morse (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Holowness of SBE
============================


jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in
news:cobor1$v3g$1@darwin.ediacara.org: 

> William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<cnefmv$r9b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>... 
(snip)

  
>> Actually sbe does provide peer review - it just provides it after 
>> publishing instead of before publishing. Both Jim McGinn and John
>> Edser have had ample opportunity to convince  others on this
>> newsgroup that Hamilton was incorrect,
 
> Yourself and others have had ample opportunity to 
> convince me that Hamilton is correct.  
 
>  and the consensus result of the peer review is 
>> that they are both wrong and Hamilton is right. 
 
> Science is not a democracy.  It's a method of 
> arriving at truth that is supposed to cut through 
> the natural tendency of humans to believe.


I agree. And since it isn't a democracy, and since I am right and you are 
wrong, why do you continue to debate ? :-) 



>> To those who may not be familiar with the history, Jim and John have 
>> stimulated much interesting discussion on the newsgroup, and it has
>> been acknowledged that there is still much to learn about the
>> implications of Hamilton's rule
 
> Much to learn?  (IOW, you don't really understand 
> Hamilton's rule but your sure it must be right.  
> Afterall it's in the text books.)

You might try reading what I and others have written about Hamilton's 
rule and tests of it in various populations. They will tell you that we 
are not sure how much of apparent altruism it actually explains, but we 
are looking at it in the real world rather than internet newsgroups.

 
>   and to what extent it actually applies in real 
>> populations. My point is that both have had ample opportunity to
>> convince others of the validity of their arguments
> 
> You've had ample opportunity to address the issues 
> I raised.  

And I and numerous others have addressed those issues. You don't accept 
our explanations. That doesn't make us wrong any more than it makes you 
wrong (see below).
 
>  in a post-publishing-peer-
>> reviewed instead of a pre-publishing-peer-reviewed setting. Neither
>> has been successful. 
> 
> I made an offer of 10 thousand dollars to anybody 
> that can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's 
> nonsense.  Joe started to approach the problem but 
> then bowed out when I insisted that he provide 
> justification for the assumptions that he tried to 
> slip in the back door of his argument.  

Well if you don't establish objective criteria for the demonstration, 
including giving authority to a third party to determine whether the 
criteria have been met,  you can't expect anyone to take you seriously on 
your offer.  

 
> That doesn't mean that Jim and John are wrong - that is 
>> for the reader to decide - but it does mean that they have had plenty
>> of opportunity for making their views known.  So blaming the
>> continued acceptance of Hamilton's rule on some fault in the
>> peer-review process is clearly a red herring. Hamilton's rule is
>> accepted because the majority of scientists who have taken a hard
>> look at it think it has some validity.
 
> Some validity?  What does this supposedly mean?  
> Either it is valid or it is invalid.  Sounds like 
> nothing more than an excuse for vagueness.  

The basic idea is simple and incontrovertible - it is simply mathematics.  
But the details of the math in real world populations are so intricate 
that rb may never be greater than c, and in cases where this appears to 
be true there may be offsetting benefits to the individual that make c 
actually a net benefit (i.e. a negative cost). So even though there 
appear to be a large number of cases (e.g. meerkats) that validate 
Hamilton's rule, the real world is complex enough that vagueness is not 
an excuse - it is the only rational response.  

 
> It always strikes me as strangely ironic how often 
> somebody on this NG will reveal that, firstly, they 
> believe in the validity of a concept and, secondly, 
> they don't fully comprehend it.  


Do you believe in electromagnetism? Do you fully comprehend it? Do you 
believe in thermodynamics? Do you fully comprehend it? Do you believe in 
plate tectonics? Do you fully comprehend it? Do you believe in 
relativity? Do you fully comprehend it? 

Now perhaps you don't believe in any of these, or perhaps you fully 
comprehend all of them. If you seriously maintain that either of the 
above is true, I suggest you seek professional help :-)

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 11/29/04 6:19:58 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)