Re: Reviews of Unto Others

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:58:14 +0000 (UTC)

> > > > JM:-
> > > > No! No! No! The correct lesson to take from the "new group
> > > > selection"
> > > > is that groups have a role ONLY IF they are ephemeral and if the
> > > > organisms in those groups do most of their breeding outside the
> > > > group.

> > > GH:-
> > > This is far too extreme. The "new group selection" allows for this
> > > possibility, largely as a result of the work of McCaughley
> > >and colleagues;
> > > but I am quite certain that D.S. Wilson would not agree with
> > >you that this
> > > defines the bounds of the "new group selection."

> > JE:-
> > "New" and "old" group selection? A rose
> > by a different name remains just a rose...

> JM:-
> Except in this case, they have come up with something that is truly
> new, a tulip, say, but instead of calling it a tulip they decided
> to call it a rose - thus creating no end of confusion.

JE:-
What is the difference in LOGIC between
so called "new" and "old" group selection?
Old group selection logic had to contest
individual selection, i.e. _both_ were
simple, testable, monistic views of levels
of selection. So called "new" group
selection just dispensed with any
need for refutability. Originally,
EITHER individual selection
OR group selection were allowed to operate in
nature. This was easy to test. Group selection
could not withstand such a test but the altruists
did not like it. What to do? Invent a
"new" group selection that allowed organism
fitness altruism within nature but call it
selection at a level _below_ the Darwinian
level: selection at the gene level. This
effectively hid (for over 40 years) that so called
gene selection just was MORE group selection.
Now let the popular Dr Pangloss do
all your hard work for you i.e. only allow
"the best of all possible worlds" within
your new gene centric level by simply changing
"EITHER" to "BOTH" and "OR" to "AND". You
just end up with yet another _irrefutable_ theory.
The trouble is, nobody seems to understand that
irrefutable theories are NOT scientific.

Using classical group selection logic, one level
remains a valid point of refutation for any other
allowing objective comparisons and testing. Using post
classical logic one level now becomes a verification
of the other allowing all points of refutation
to just evaporate. Hurray! Everybody was right
all of the time, thus "allowing" organism fitness
altruism within nature. Anybody can explain
away anything by allowing a valid point of
refutation to now become another promiscuous
point of verification.

Enron accountants let debits becomes credits
so Enron was not going bankrupt it was getting
richer(!). Likewise, within Hamilton's rule debits
(+c), and credits (-c), cannot be distinguished.
The rule cannot tell when +c (altruism) has only
been relatively reduced or absolute gains have
increased in a mutualised way. Like
the Enron accountants, Hamilton's altruistic gene
cannot tell when it is heading for bankruptcy.

> > JE:-
> > In your opinion was the oldest
> > form of the "new group selection" Hamilton's
> > rule? Would you agree that the most important
> > thing all these "new" forms of group selection
> > have in common is that they cannot be
> > tested against nature whereas the "old"
> > form of group selection could be?

> JM:-
> Two very good questions. So good that I can't give short answers.
> As to what was the earliest "new group selection" model, I don't
> know. However, it is certainly true that Hamilton's 1964 kin
> selection model can be understood as a "new group selection" model,
> even though it preceeded the "real" origin of "new group selection"
> by a few years. I think that Price (1970) and D.S. Wilson (1975)
> are the theoretical underpinnings of "new group selection".

JE:-
The question is: When did Hamilton et
al understand that "inclusive fitness"
_required_ group selection? Did they attempt
to hide this fact with just the smokescreen:
selection at a competing gene level forcing
organism fitness altruism.

> JM:-
> The question of testability against nature is even more difficult.
> "New group selection" means different things to different people.
> Some people like to emphasize that the "new group selection" is
> "multi-level selection". If they mean by this that you can have
> multiple distinct processes going on simultaneously, then, in
> theory, you ought to be able to test against nature whether the
> controversial higher-level processes are actually happening.

JE:-
The only way that all levels can be _simultaneously_
selected is when "different" levels only end up as
exactly the same (one) level or they are nested sets of
different levels. No other possibility exists.
If they are just the same level then no levels (plural)
existed, just one (singular) level. If they are nested
sets of different levels then all of them (without
exception) can only be _simultaneously_
selected at just the largest nested set level. Here
"growth" becomes the replication of any smaller
nested set so the term "reproduction" becomes
reserved for only the largest nested set, which
of course, includes all other nested sets. Clearly
maximising growth does not necessarily get the largest
nested set selected! If the largest nested set is not
selected then the smaller ones CANNOT BE.

 
> JM:-
> Actually performing such a test and interpreting the results
> may be difficult, but it ought to be possible.

JE:-
Until multi level theorists come up with
_competing multilevel theories_ of NATURE
i.e. theories that can test to refutation
between say 2 and 3 levels (note that an
infinity of multilevels cannot be
tested) and STOP invalidly allowing multi level
theory to ad hoc between 2 and any number
of multi levels to evade refutation, then
multilevel theory will remain non testable
against single level theory, i.e. multi level
theory will remain irrefutable. To put it very
bluntly, multilevel theory remains just a witch
hunt compared to _any_ single level theory.
Allowing just a witch hunt to contest and win
against a testable theory is not what science
is about.

> JM:-
> A lot of people call themselves "new group selectionists" or
> "multi-level selectionists" even though they believe in the
> "old" classical group selection. They emphasize that the
> hypothetical group selection and old fashioned individual-level
> natural selection go on at the same time (as if they imagined
> that opposition to classical group selection was based on a
> misunderstanding of this aspect of the model).

JE:-
These people are lazy. Anybody can invoke Dr
Pangloss to solve their problems (many
promiscuous points of verification). The good
Dr requires hardly any work. The hard work is
coming up with valid points of _refutation_
(as Popper stressed) and separating points
of refutation from points of non verification
because they are not the same thing. Attempting to
cash in valid points of refutation for points of
verification in order to play a Casino table is
what the Enron accountants did. It constitutes
intellectual bankruptcy of the first order.

> JM:-
> And they
> welcome the theoretical support offered by the Price-Wilson
> models, because they think that this new theory also
> supports the old models. It doesn't, IMO, but confusion on
> this point is fed by the undeniable fact that some of the
> same theorists that promote the new theory are also involved
> in exploring the loopholes that remain in the incomplete
> "disproof" of the classical theory.

JE:-
The only possible way that this mess
can be sorted is by _requiring_ multi
level theorists to supply points of
refutation:

1) Between single and multi level theory.
2) Between different sized multi levels.

and:

3) Reject all infinite multi level theory.

> JM:-
> However, some people interpret "multi-level selection" to mean
> that a single process or strand of a process can be understood
> at any of several different levels. Wilkins, I think, might
> react to this by saying that those different levels of selection
> don't "really" exist - that there is one particular level that
> is the "best" level for viewing that process, and that anyone
> who insists on viewing it at a different level is making a mistake.

JE:-
I agree with this view. Only a single level
of selection does (and logically can) exist
within nature. It is based empirically on the
experiment that JE provided to test the
definition of Darwinian fitness JE also provided.
Darwinism was always a monistic view of fitness that
can be tested to refutation by anybody who wishes to
make the test. However, nobody here wishes to discuss
such a test because it is simple and definitive.

> JM:-
> (I probably exagerate John W's pig-headedness here, but I actually
> have some sympathy for this extreme philosophical "monism").
> Other people welcome this kind of "pluralism", and I have some
> sympathy for that, as well.
>
> To return to "testability", it should be obvious that the
> question of whether it is best to view a particular mechanism
> as a case of individual level selection or of group level
> selection - this question simply is not a testable empirical
> question.

JE:-
Yes it is.

IF individuals constitute nested sets of fitness
within a group THEN the group is selected over
individuals because individuals can only be
simultaneously selected at the largest nested
set level: the group level.

IF individuals only form intersecting fitness sets
THEN individuals and groups of them remain
fitness independent so they cannot be
selected simultaneously, only in sequence. Here
only the first in such a sequence dominates
entirely, what can be selected. In reality
this is the Darwinian fertile individual level.
Either way you just end up with just _one_ effective
level of selection.

> JM:-
> So, to the extent that I call myself a "new group
> selectionist", I have to plead guilty, John. My opinion
> cannot be tested against nature.

JE:-
Classical group selection could be tested to
refutation against Darwinian individual selection
because they were competing monistic theories.
"New" group selection cannot be so tested because
debits were redefined as credits in a just
a mathematicians (PPP) Paper Panglossian Paradise ;-)

> JM:-
> So now to the inevitable follow-up question: Is Hamilton's
> model testable against nature? Well, the key ingredient
> of Hamilton's model is that carriers of the allele for
> altruism do better than the general population BECAUSE
> they receive more altruism than does the general population.

JE:-
You have very clearly outlined the absurdity
of Hamilton's proposition. IF "carriers of the
allele for altruism do better than the general
population BECAUSE they receive more altruism
than does the general population" THEN
the population must fall because the absolute
fitness of all the other members of the population
must have fallen, UNLESS the recipients and the
general population made absolute gains.
In this instance no altruism
is evident. As the hapless altruistic gene only
relatively spreads (spreads as just a ratio of altruist
genes to wildtype genes that = 1) the population
shrinks to pay for it. A relative gain for just an
absolute loss = an absolute loss, always, no
exceptions. No rational evolutionary theory can
select for extinction. The only possible way
the gene can spread is when it INCREASES
the absolute fitness of the other members
of the population. This process is mutualistic
and not altruistic.

> JM:-
> Furthermore, they receive this excess altruism, not because
> they somehow CAUSE the altruists to be nice to them, but
> simply because their genomes happen to be correlated with
> the genomes of the altruists. We can certainly test whether
> the carriers of a particular gene do, in fact, receive more
> altruism. But determining WHY they receive more altruism
> is more problematic. I hope that addresses the question.

JE:-
The altruism that can be provided is finite and not
infinite. It is exactly, the total of the Darwinian
fitness of every member of one population. It is not
possible to donate more than this. If you just donate
all of it then the population becomes extinct. If you
invest all of it, then the population can absolutely
increase. You do not need to know any more than this.
Hamilton et al utterly confused organism fitness altruism
with organism fitness mutualism in their politically
correct rush to support altruism within nature.
Their error was enormous and their motives, dubious.

Respectfully,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Applying TDF (was understanding y)
    ... >> Gene centricity within inclusive fitness. ... > mating, rather than sexual selection. ... genetics refer to it as "assortive mating". ... or in a diploid model with the altruism genes recessive. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hollowness of Hamiltons Rule
    ... > carries the gene for altruism, ... > to its fitness, which means that it will pass on fewer copies of the ... selection event has ever been documented ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: sci.bio.evolution mailing list
    ... group selection that is occurring within evolutionary theory but a bias ... group selection verifications employ a fitness measure which is the simple ... Not a single testable to refutation polycentric theory of nature has been ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Perpetually Perplexed
    ... Hamilton's incomplete fitness total rb it ... Once again no Darwinian altruism ... gene level of selection within the bodies ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons Rule: light at the end of a LONG tunnel?
    ... >> RECIPIENT of altruism). ... > frequent claims of support for kin selection while ignoring the potential ... Because HR has no constant term, _unconditional_ actor selfishness (any ... The conversion from group selection to organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading