Re: Jim's Hamilton's rule prize

From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/20/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:38:57 +0000 (UTC)

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cq341s$1ke6
> $1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> > [snip]
> > ... To be honest, part of my
> > reluctance to respond to that post involves the rhetorical ploys
you
> > employed in the context of your argument. For example:
> >
> > " . . . as it turns out, a fairly simple algebraic
> > combination of these two probabilities is all we need to
> > define a number "r"."
> >
> > and
> >
> > "Now comes an algebraic "coincidence". It turns out
> > that IBD relatedness is a very good approximation to the
> > "disproportionate representation"
> > relatedness that we discussed several paragraphs back."
> >
> > These are not rational arguments for why your thinking is true.
These
> > are, as I indicated, rhetorical ploys for why we should just take
your
> > word for it.
> > [snip]
>
> "Rhetorical ploys", huh? As you point out, they were certainly not
> rational arguments.

I don't get this. When I read something in a scientific
forum I assume that the author intended his words to be
rational.

> That wasn't the purpose. The goal of my "rhetoric"
> was not the prosecuting attorney's goal - to create conviction. It
was
> the defense attorney's goal - to create doubt.

Your words bespoke certainty, not doubt.

> Or perhaps I should compare my goal to that of a science-fiction
writer -
> to create a "willing suspension of disbelief".

IMO a scientist should always be attempting exactly
the opposite, the willing suspension of belief.

> Not a permanent suspension,
> to be sure, but a suspension for the few weeks it would take for you
to
> dig up some textbooks, find some pencil and paper and quiet time, and
work
> thru Hamilton's logic on your own.

I did this over ten year ago. I found that Hamilton's
logic is nonexistent.

> I don't want you to "take my word for it"
> that Hamilton was right, though I would appreciate it if you extended
some
> belief, subject to your own double-checking, to my claims about what
it is
> that he said.

We know what he said.

Jim