Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 01/14/05
- Next message: CNCabej: "Re "GENES ARE FOLLOWERS NOT LEADERS". Was Birds of feather..."
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Take Joe's Word For It"
- Next in thread: Malcolm: "Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)"
- Reply: Malcolm: "Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)"
- Reply: Jim McGinn: "Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:16:49 +0000 (UTC)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote:-
> > > > . . . the point of refutation that has
> > > > always existed within Darwin's original argument.
> > > JMcG:-
> > > Point of refutation?
> > JE:-
> > You have previously claimed to have
> > read Karl Popper.
> JMcG:-
> Can you quote Karl Popper using
> the phrase, "point of refutation?"
JE;-
You could call it a wedge
of refutation if you like, it
doesn't make the slightest
difference to the concept.
> > JE:-
> > A point of refutation
> > is an prohibited observation of nature
> > that is logically valid.
> JE:-
> Is this Popper's definition?
JE:-
No, it is my definition
of Popper's concept. As I
have previously argued,
if you think I have misrepresented
that concept with this definition
then please provide quotes of Popper
that prove it. I have no intention
of debating with you what
Popper's epistemology is because you
always refuse to provide refutable
propositions. Popper was quite
clear. It does not matter how
wacky somebody thinks a theory
is as long as it remains refutable
it constitutes a valuable contribution
to the sciences. The converse applies.
I will let you work out what the
converse is for yourself....
> > > > JE:-
> > > > It is simply not true to suggest Darwinian units
> > > > of fitness "are difficult or impossible to actually
> > > > calculate" it is the very opposite: they can be
> > > > simple and easy to calculate. It is not a
> > > > difficult task to total the number of fertile
> > > > forms each parent reproduces into one population
> > > > within a biological population in a laboratory.
> > > JMcG:-
> > > Yes, but, obviously there's more to fitness than just this.
> > JE:-
> > Not on any REFUTABLE basis.
> JMcG:-
> Refutable basis? What is a refutable basis. Is there such thing as an
> irrefutable basis?
JE:-
The above proves you reject Popper's
epistemology. Lets clear this
up. Do you accept or reject Popper's
epistemology? My prediction is that
you will refuse to answer.
I also predict
you will never answer the two basic
questions I asked about your own
model:
1) How many level does it assume?
2) Are these levels simultaneously
selected or are they selected in some
sort of sequence?
> > JE:-
> > Nothing is obvious even the obvious.
> JMcG:-
> That's obvious.
JE:-
Here lies your problem: a
reliance on absolute
self contradictions. You will
never understand that if "nothing is
obvious" then this _cannot_
be obvious because when it is
it refutes the proposition. Your
answer was predictable. It proves
you cannot reason.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Also, it is not impossible to test total Darwinian
> > > > fitness to refutation by holding each total fitness
> > > > per selectee in one population to remain equal thereby
> > > > prohibiting Darwinian natural selection within
> > > > one laboratory population. At the same time the
> > > > common Neo Darwinian proposition that random
> > > > processes like genetic drift can now be tested
> > > > because all Darwinian selection can be removed from
> > > > a biological population. Note that this or any test
> > > > of a random processes is not a definitive test
> > > > to refutation. It is just a non definitive test to
> > > > non verification. Note also, that it makes no
> > > > difference to Darwinian total fitness counts
> > > > when they overlap simply because a relative
> > > > comparison of these fitness counts can only become
> > > > final when the totals are compared. Comparing
> > > > a sub total to a total via overlapping counts
> > > > simply produces an incomplete relative fitness
> > > > comparison which can be entirely misleading.
> > > JMcG:-
> > > We can't just pretend not to notice the complexity of
> > > fitness.
> > JE:-
> > Your "complexity of fitness" is simply not
> > needed for an empirical test of nature.
> JMcG:-
> IMO evolutionary theory is about explaning the complexity of nature,
> not dismissing it.
JE:-
Without refutability ANYTHING constitutes
such an "explanation". Your argument remains
the stuff of witch hunts used by the infamous
Spanish Inquisition. If you dismiss refutability
you must also dismiss reason. Without
refutability anything goes within an
irrational proposition.
I have provided an _empirical_ test of _nature_
that can entirely refute my proposition of
what Darwinian fitness is. This
is all science requires. Neither yourself,
JM, NAS, BOH JF or anybody else here,
have provided just one, single refutation for any
of their fitness propositions. Indeed, Dr Hoelzer
has stated he has thrown out Popper. All of you
are just hopeless hand wavers. If the mathematics
of a proposed fitness is not refutable it only
constitutes a hand waving version of evolutionary
theory no matter how "sophisticated" it may
appear on paper.
> > JE:-
> > You
> > seem not to notice that you want fitness to
> > be more complex than it needs to be to be tested
> > be on a refutable basis
>JMcG:-
> Refutable basis? How do you propose to test it?
JE:-
I have provided an empirical test
to refutation of Darwinain fitness,
within nature.
Lets look at a_very_ basic example
of a test to refutation.
All of the sciences, i.e. both
physics and biology rest entirely
on one very basic point of
refutation: the absolute non reversibility
of time. If time could be documented
to be reversed then all the sciences
as we understand them today stand
refuted. Even ethics becomes
contradictory if time can be reversed
Here Nazis resurrect burnt bodies,
make them whole, dress them and send
them back to their homes and their
lives.
Please note: logically time can
be reversed. The mathematics of
time reversal exists. This does not
mean that time reversal is somehow
_rational_.
> > JE:-
> > when your more complex
> > view cannot even be so tested.
> JMcG:-
> Why do you assume this?
JE:-
It is not an assumption.
Over two years ago you admitted
that your model cannot be tested.
This was not surprising to me because
no model can be tested. Of course,
if I am wrong and I have misrepresented
the testable status of your model you
only need to provide the so far
entirely missing refutation of it
(which would be very difficult because
to date, you haven't even supplied your
model).
> > JE:-
> > The rule of
> > parsimony
> JMcG:-
> Parsimony is out of context in this discussion.
JE:-
I'm sure the chief inquisitor
uttered the same nonsense to Galileo
before they threatened to burn him
alive for having the gall to
propose a more simple and utterly
refutable theory of nature compared
to their hopeless, more complex
irrefutable theory...
> > JE:-
> > suggests that your view is not
> > valid because it requires more complexity
> > than is required to make a refutable test
> > of nature
> JMcG:-
> Perfect nonsense.
JE:-
I am happy that you understand nonsense
_perfectly_ because nobody else I
know has any understanding of what
nonsense is because it is only...
nonsense...
> > JE:-
> > while at the same time, it
> > remains irrefutable. Neo Darwinists have
> > made the same basic error.
> JMcG:-
> What error?
JE:-
They only supply irrefutable theories
of nature which are more complex
than is required to provide
a more simple refutable theory! It
appears nothing much has changed.
Throughout history mans love of
useless complexity and his hatred of
testing it (or even just taking
an unbiased view of it)
has been a plague created
by the human mind that has
ravaged humanity more than
any biological disease could
ever hope to achieve.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: CNCabej: "Re "GENES ARE FOLLOWERS NOT LEADERS". Was Birds of feather..."
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Take Joe's Word For It"
- Next in thread: Malcolm: "Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)"
- Reply: Malcolm: "Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)"
- Reply: Jim McGinn: "Re: The Crux of Hamilton's Error!)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
