Re: Interview with Mayr
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 10/12/04
- Next message: Michael Ragland: "Aggression, human nature and paleopsychology"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Maybe in reply to: Michael Ragland: "Interview with Mayr"
- Next in thread: Lennart Kiil: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Reply: Lennart Kiil: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:36:24 +0000 (UTC)
"Lennart Kiil" <kiilx@xtele2adsl.dk> wrote:
> >> LK:-
> >> In general: If epistemological reductionism is taken to mean that all
> >> phenomena can be most completely understood in terms of the
> >> behavior of the
> >> smallest detectable entities and that we can gain our knowledge
> >> the fastest
> >> by pursuing the inquiry only at this microphysical level, then I must
> >> conclude that epistemological reductionism is dead.
> > JE:-
> > It depends on how the levels are joined.
> > Reductive reasoning is a deductive chain
> > of logic from mostly, _undefined inductive assumptions_.
> > If you assume A, then B and C may be valid deductions from A
> > (in that order) where C may represent a "microphysical" level
> > of A. As an example: the organism A (as a very basic inductive
> > biological assumption) allows genes C to become deductive
> > microphysical levels of complexity via the phenotypes B that
> > genes C can be tested to code for within each organism
> > assumption. Mendel did the original experimental
> > deductive work of C from A via B. Note that the sum of
> > each C genes fitness does _not_ add up to form the fitness
> > of one A organism. This means that understanding the
> > fitness of one A organism within evolutionary theory
> > may require C as a test of the organism assumption A.
> > It certainly does not mean that C can replace A
> > in any way! However this remains the basis of
> > gene centric Neo Darwinism. The fact that not a single documented
> > independent gene fitness exists is all the proof that
> > is needed to show that A+B = C represents a false
> > deduction from A. Yet, the gene centric reasoning of Hamilton
> > et al (developed from Fisher et al) assumes that the heritable
> > fitness of each genomic gene can be added up to calculate the
> > fitness of one organism because only additive levels allow fitness
> > _independence_. Unless fitness independence exists selection at
> > Hamilton et al heuristic gene level of selection cannot
> > force organism fitness altruism (OFA) at the Darwinian fertile organism
> > level of selection as Hamilton et al have insisted that it can for
> > over 50 years. Hamilton et al represents a classic case of
> > misused reductive thinking within the science of biology.
> > Almost all such reductive models have been misused in this way.
> > Population genetics has made a speciality out of such misuse.
> LK:-
> Well, most of the theory was developed at a time when the causal
> relationships between the levels were less well known than know.
JE:-
Nothing has changed re: refutable propositions
concerning "the causal relationships between
the levels". All single level theories must
be tested to refutation _before_ multi level
theories, via Occam's Razor. To refuse
to use the razor is just a gross act of
inefficiency retarding the evolution of
scientific ideas. As long as just one refutable
single level of selection remains non refuted
(which is the case) all multi level theories
can be validly ignored using the parsimony
principle. Not to do so is to make research
hopelessly inefficient.
> >> LK:
> >> This is a descriptive
> >> statement on my part, not a normative or evaluative one. There is
> >> no need to
> >> flog a dead horse (or any horse for that matter) so I am not
> >> going to argue
> >> why this probably also serves us better (shortly it has to do
> >> with the fact
> >> that we can never really get outside the system we are trying to
> >> understand).
> > JE:-
> > The only way we can step "outside the system we are trying to
> > understand" is to make a better inductive guess about what
> > we think it may be and test it refutation via any of its
> > deductions.
> LK:-
> Yes, but even so there are yet some problems. I will not go into
> this as I
> believe it to be too far from the purport of this group.
JE:-
This group is involved in the application of
evolutionary theory re: the evolution of ideas.
Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for you
to expand your argument here.
> >> LK
> >> Within evolutionary theory I guess exclusive focus on the genic
> >> level could
> >> be considered epistemological reductionism.
> > JE:-
> > Yes it does represent "epistemological reductionism".
> > The only question of worth is: has this epistemological
> > reductionism been misused? Unfortunately the answer is
> > a resounding YES for the reasons give above.
> LK:-
> Apparently so.
JE:-
Would you please list what you argue
were/are acts of reductive misuse
within evolutionary theory.
I identify four general acts of misuse:
1) Population genetics which can only see
proportions and not totals cannot measure
fitness in any meaninful way. Thus Hamilton's
rule used to measure when organism fitness altruism
(OFA) can or cannot evolve remains entirely misused.
Dr O'Hara and Dr Hoelzer both agree that the
term "frequency", which forms THE measuring
standard of population genetics is a misused term
where all instances of "frequency" used as an
absolute measure e.g. a total must be
replaced with just a "proportion" which is only
a relative measure, i.e. a comparison of
unknown totals.
2) NAS (Name and Address Supplied) who refuses
to supply his name and address to sbe readers
has argued that the use of probability to measure
relatedness using relatedness IBD via Hamilton
et al constitutes a misuse.
3)The gene centric model view that genomic
genes constitute an independent level of
fitness has been grossly misused because
a non testable to refutation model cannot
validly contest and win against the refutable
theory it was simplified/oversimplified from.
4) The Popperian process of refutation has
been thrown out by many Neo Darwinists who
post here e.g. Dr Hoelzer. Others, Such
a Dr O'Hara, Dr Tyler and Prof. Felsenstein
will not make their position known to sbe
readers. The net result is that non refutable
propositions of what evolution is have proliferated
within evolutionary theory constituting a gross
misuse, e.g. evolution by random sampling error
without selection (or any other non random process).
The net result is that non refutable "creation
science" has elbowed its way into science departments
in the USA making a mockery of science in
general. The epsitemological cause is the adoption
of Post Modernism which is just a 100% self contradictive
epistemology.
> >> LK:-
> >> Back in university I wrote my thesis on the controversies between
> >> Gould and
> >> Dawkins. In my view we can get the most complete understanding
> of living
> >> systems by paying attention to both of these men. They both have their
> >> fallacies too of course. Gould's hierarchy to easily falls pray to
> >> the lazy
> >> relativism that is the unfortunate zeitgeist we live with, such as the
> >> argument that all levels are equally important/unimportant.
> > JE:-
> > Gould never understood absolute Darwinian
> > fitness. The reason why "Goulds hierarchy to easily falls pray to
> > the lazy relativism" that "is the unfortunate zeitgeist we live with"
> > is that Gould never understood the inductive importance of
> > the total number of fertile forms reproduced into one population
> > by each parent. Unless you can define absolute Darwinian fitness you
> > have nothing to make evolutionary theory deductions, from. Fitness
> > has nothing to do with survival per se, this is just a sub value of
> > fitness. Herbert Spencer led everybody up the garden path with his
> > jingle "survival of the fittest" which still dominates in 2004
> > (even Hamilton refers to it one of his early papers).
> LK:-
> Very true, and very unfortunate.
JE:-
"Unfortunate" is just an understatement.
What has happened can only represent an act
of gross incompetence or _massive_ bias.
The latter should be chosen using Occam's
Razor. It is easy to see that Neo
Darwinian misuse may have been politically
motivated. The only other choice is gross
incompetence.
Note: nobody here will discuss the implications
of the testable to refutation concept
of absolute Darwinian fitness that
I have provided.
> > JE;-
> > Absolute Darwinian fitness is: the total number of fertile
> > forms reproduced into one population by each parent. It is
> > not the number of fertile/infertile forms that you just happen to
> > count at one point in time as identified genomic genes
> > and it is not the total number of infertile forms you have
> > reproduced. You have to raise infertile forms to fertile
> > adulthood before
> > they count as Darwinian fitness units simply because genes
> > within infertile forms remain locked in. One parent can have as many
> > separate total Darwinian fitness measures as separate totals
> > of fertile forms reproduced into separate populations.
> >
> > The "unfortunate zeitgeist we live with" is Post Modernism
> > which assumes that everything is relative. Post Modernism fits
> > population genetics like a glove. As Dr Hoelzer
> > and Dr O'Hara agreed, population genetics cannot
> > see totals it can only see proportions (all proportions
> > are just relative measures). Dr O'Hara has labelled the
> > term "frequency" as the ongoing misuse of population genetics
> > because it only represents a proportion and not a total.
> > Given these facts of logic it is simple to
> > understand why "Goulds hierarchy to easily falls
> > pray to the lazy relativism". Unless you can correctly identify
> > a biological maximand you have no other choice. NAS agrees
> > that Neo Darwinians do not have a maximand. However, absolute
> > Darwinian fitness represents such a maximand. I have been posting
> > it to sbe for over 4 years. I have also posted an experiment
> > to test it to refutation. The same experiment can test
> > the Neo Darwinist assumption that random processes such as
> > mutation and random sampling error (termed genetic drift)
> > can _alone_ cause "evolution". This Neo Darwinian assumption
> > is not testable to refutation (it is only testable to non
> > verification) so it only represents a rusty "iron man" misuse of
> > a random process to allow a useless irrefutable theory of evolution.
> LK:-
> Well, yes, but how would you go about measuring absolute fitness? This is
> not an easy task.
JE:-
No it remains (in principle) an easy task.
The experiment I have outlined can test it
to refutation. Measuring absolute Darwinian
fitness only means counting the total number
of fertile forms reproduced by one parent
into one population. In nature this is not easy
to measure, directly. In the lab it is very easy.
>LK:-
>In fact it would require us to stand at the end of time
>and be able to look all the way back to the start.
JE:-
Absolutely not. You appear to not understood
what absolute Darwinian fitness can be
defined to be as a testable maximand of
nature. Please refer to the definition I have
provided.
> >> LK
> >> Dawkins on the
> >> other hand, I think, has tended to ascribe to much to the
> >> genes, in more
> >> than one way.
> > JE:-
> > Dawkins and Wilson's Sociobiology argument relies entirely on
> > Hamilton's rule which has been misused in an ongoing way to
> > support OFA within nature after group selection failed to
> > be able to do so over 50 years ago. The rule cannot discriminate
> > between the cost c as an investment and the same cost c as a
> > donation by the actor because it only measures the _difference_ between
> > rb and c, i.e. it is a clear cut case of "lazy relativism"
> > being used to entirely misrepresent evolutionary theory. Unless what
> > Hamilton terms OFA is actually its opposite: organism fitness
> > mutualism (OFM), both altruistic and wildtype genes move to extinction.
> > Even though one can win relative to the other _both_ sustain
> > an absolute (total) fitness loss leading to extinction unless OFM
> > and not OFA is operating.
> > Of course, no independent gene level
> > of fitness has ever existed. Not a single independent
> > genomic gene fitness has ever been documented within nature.
> > Dawkins and the University of Oxford have misrepresented
> > evolutionary theory to the general public via chronic reductive
> > misuse and must take responsibility for such misuse.
> LK:-
> And further rely to much on correlation where causality should be
> requiered.
> No wonder Popper never accepted this strain as science proper.
> That does not
> mean of course, that they might not be right on some issues.
JE:-
Prof. Felsenstein (a leader in the field) has made
his position clear to sbe. Under
no circumstances will he discuss "cause and effect".
He has admitted that the models are not testable
in the way that Popper insised, i.e. they cannot be
tested to refutation. All this means to me is that
gene centric Neo Darwinism wishes to retire to a
position of irrefutabilty. It appears that Neo
Darwinists cannot ssee that such a position is
destructive to evolutionary science.
> >> LK;-
> >> In conclusion, it is good to inquire from a number of levels
> >> because this
> >> will speed up the process of scientific progress.
> > JE:-
> > I think you are in serious error. What is required
> > is a single, testable, fitness maximand (a maximand for evolutionary
> > theory that can be tested to refutation). Deleting the Popperian
> > refutation process as Dr Hoelzer argues, or attempting to substitute
> > rusting "iron man" propositions for refutable propositions as
> > Dr Moran argues, is only a recipe for disaster. The result
> > of this misuse is that totally irrefutable "creation science"
> > can now be required to be taught in some USA schools within
> > science departments.
> LK:-
> I am not sure I quite understand you point here?!
JE:-
Absolute Darwinian fitness (as I have defined it)
constitutes a testable, _single_, maximand of
biological nature. The total number of fertile
forms reproduced into one population by each
fertile form constitutes a total and thus absolute
measure of Darwinian fitness per Darwinian selectee.
This maximand can be tested to refutation. I have
outlined an experiment that can do this. Such a
maximand only represents a _single_ fitness level.
Because this is the case the principle of parsimony
insists that it be refuted before any multiple levels
of fitness are even considered. Not to do so is to allow
gross inefficiency. Neo Darwiniains:
1) Have no maximand of biological nature
2) Do not discriminate between testing to
verification/non verification and testing
to refutation.
3) Because of (2) consistently misuse simplifed/
oversimplifed models of testable to refutation
theories of the science of biology.
4) Incorrectly attempt to replace non testable
to refutation SINGLE levels of fitness with
non testable MULTIPLE levels of fitness because
they think these multiple levels can "explain" more.
5) Refuse to even consider the Darwinian maximand
I have defined even though this maxiamnd CAN be
tested to refutation.
In short the Neo Darwinian establishment is
either incompetent or entirely biased (or both).
> >> LK:-
> >> I think exclusive
> >> epistemological reductionism is effectivly dead within
> >> evolutionary theory
> >> because now it seems to be evident to most researchers that it
> >> is not the
> >> most fruitful outlook.
> > JE:-
> > Scientific method has not changed.
> > You make an assumption of nature which must
> > be testable to refutation using an appropriate
> > experimental methodology. Multi levels
> > of selection are tested (if they can be
> > tested!) _lastly_ and not firstly if
> > contesting single levels of selection
> > exist to be tested to refutation (which is the case).
> > Total Darwinian fitness as a single refutable maximand
> > for the science of biology remains NON refuted.
> > Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony
> > have existed almost as long as scientific method
> > has existed in order to make testing more efficient.
> > However, it appears these basic principles
> > are simply ignored by prejudiced Neo Darwinists.
> > When questioned they retreat into Post Modern
> > "lazy relativism" while continuing to collect their
> > paycheques.
> LK:-
> Well, this tendency will be dificult to subvert from here. What
> else are you
> doing to alert to public of this issue?
JE:-
I am writing a book. I also suggest that
having almost a state run monopoly on
eduction and evolutionary research is
just a disaster because it will collapse
under group selective logic. It appears
that Neo Darwinists are the last people
on earth to understand such a proposition
yet it forms a major part of what they
study!
Please do not underestimate the power
of free, _democratic_ discussion groups such
as sbe. Tiny though they are, they represent
the path of the future. The arthritcally slow systems
of publication using peer reviwed journals that
should be published free on the internet if
they have already been paid for out of taxation
(charging the public to read them is immoral
if they public has already paid for them) is
way out of date. Also, accedemic ivory towers
are now thrown open, via the internet, for
closer public inspection. IMHO it is not a pretty
sight. It appears the same group of people
have been pedding prejudice and awarding
each other positions, prizes and medels
at public cost, exactly as group selection
predicts that they would. It is up to people
of integrity to lauder this dirty washing
in _public_. I submit that sbe is a logical
place in which to do it.
> >> LK:-
> >> I apologize for my terrible prose, I had to much to drink
> >> yesterday (this
> >> morning actually)
> >> best regards,
> >> Lennart Kiil
> >> www.zensci.com
> > JE:-
> > Did you meet Dr O'Hara in the bar drinking
> > his "lazy relativism" troubles away ;-)
> LK:-
> I am not sure, I do not really remember!
JE:-
I am quite sure Dr O'Hara would not
remember, also ;-)
My Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Michael Ragland: "Aggression, human nature and paleopsychology"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Maybe in reply to: Michael Ragland: "Interview with Mayr"
- Next in thread: Lennart Kiil: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Reply: Lennart Kiil: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
