Re: Interview with Mayr

• Previous message: Lennart Kiil: "Re: Darwinism=Capitalism"
• In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
• Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:36:49 +0000 (UTC)

"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:ckhf88$939$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> "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.

LK:-
Yes, but this was not my point. My point was about the 'content' of the
separate levels.

> 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.

LK:-
This is correct. But what if refutation is unlikely, then it might be wise
to go ahead in the hope that the refutation will not happen.

> Not to do so is to make research
> hopelessly inefficient.

LK:-
Well, I would say less efficient

>
>
>> >> 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:-
I would insist on postponing this expansion. I am still trying to figure out
a good way to communicate these ideas.

>> >> 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.

LK:-
I will comment on yours instead. There is probably a lot of overlap.

> 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.

LK:-
What exactly is meant here by fitness and meaningful?

> Thus Hamilton's
> rule used to measure when organism fitness altruism
> (OFA) can or cannot evolve remains entirely misused.

LK:-
I do not entirely understand exactly how this applies to Hamilton's rule.

> 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.

LK:-
Yes, I agree this would be more appropiate nomenclature.

> 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.

LK:-
This one I do not understand at all.

> 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.

LK:-
A 'non testable to refution model' should never even enter into the contest.

> 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.

LK:-
I have been with sbe for only two weeks. I cannot comment on this.

> 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).

LK:-
Well this certainly seems to have been a more broad phenomena, going on
outside sbe as well.

> 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.

LK:-
Yes, this is probably true.

> The epsitemological cause is the adoption
> of Post Modernism which is just a 100% self contradictive
> epistemology.

LK:-
I could not agree more.

>> >> 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.

LK:-
Or a combination.

>
> 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:-
So this is your defintion of absolute fitness. This has been done I would
think.

>
>>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:-
I thought you had something else in mind when talking about 'absolute
fitness'.

>
>> >> 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:-
Here I agree with you entirely.

>
>> >> 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).
>

They are not proceeding in a purely scientific manner.

>> >> 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!

LK:-
This is interesting, could you elaborate?

> 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 agree with almost everything you write here except I do not think sbe is
an effective means to reach the general public.

>
>
>> >> 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 ;-)

I would not know.

Best Regards,

Lennart Kiil
MSc and Science Journalist
www.zensci.com
www.zensci.dk

• Previous message: Lennart Kiil: "Re: Darwinism=Capitalism"
• In reply to: John Edser: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
• Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Interview with Mayr"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]