Re: The Making of The King's Invisible Thread [REPOST]
From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Haldane's Hangover"
- Previous message: Malcolm: "Re: Logic of kin selection"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "The Making of The King's Invisible Thread"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:29:54 -0500 (EST)
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Jim McGinn" wrote:
> > Ask yourself some questions.
> >
> > Are genes that are IBD different from genes that
> > are not IBD in terms of their causative
> > properties? Yes, No.
> >
> > If they are different in terms of their causative
> > properties what is the PROXIMATE mechanism by which
> > they produce this difference is causative properties?
> > I mean, do genes somehow know whether or not they are
> > IBD and act accordingly? How do they know this?
> >
> > If they are not different in terms of their causative
> > properties then why even bother to distinguish between
> > them?
>
> You are now FINALLY asking the correct rhetorical questions.
Ah, so, up to this point I've been asking the
incorrect rhetorical questions? Gee, I wonder how
I messed that up. Well, at least I FINALLY got
it right.
> I'm going to further infuriate you by declining to answer
> them.
Well, by golly, that is a bit perplexing, Perplexed.
> But I have been claiming all along that the argument
> implicitly contained in your questions is at the heart
> of your opposition to Hamilton.
So you can't pretend to have any trouble comprehending
these questions.
> I think I said something
> like "McGinn believes that geneology just cannot be causal".
> At the time, you said that you didn't understand me, perhaps
> because I expressed myself badly.
Geneology (the study of genes) being causal? In what
sense? At best this is bad grammar. At worst it is
intentionally vague.
> But now, take my word
> for it, you are saying exactly what I would expect someone
> with your misconceptions to say.
That makes me feel better.
> While I won't directly address your questions,
Why? Did I interrupt your morning cartoon or something?
> I will
> remind you that I wrote that what "really" matters is
> whether the recipient carries "the gene" "disproportionately"
> more frequently than does the typical member of the
> population.
I promise to do my best to always remember that you
first told me this. It's unfortunate that, after
all this time, I still cannot quite comprehend
what you mean by it all.
> I wrote that the proper measure of this
> disproportionality is the "regression r" of the 1970
> paper. I also wrote that the equivalence between
> regression r and the IBD r
Uh, do you think the word, "equivalence," is the
right word to use here?
> of the 1964 paper is an
> "algebraic coincidence". You are beginning to pay
> attention to, and follow, the algebra now. Continue
> to do so. Suspend your disbelief just long enough so
> that someone can work their way all the way to the
> conclusion of the algebra so that the "coincidence"
> is revealed in all of its glory.
Does it in any way involve the employment of pixie
dust or anything to that effect?
> I suggest that you attend to Felsenstein's presentation.
> Just take it on faith for now that your implicit argument
> might be fallacious due to YOUR misunderstanding of
> what Hamilton's/Felsenstein's argument actually is going
> to be. Take the argument on its own terms. Then, when
> you have understood that argument, go back and see whether
> your rhetorical questions actually apply.
Ya know, one thing I noticed about the difference
between how I operate in this NG and how you and
Joe operate. When an aspect of my thinking needs
to be better explained so that my audience can
understand the context and details of my argument
I refer to posts that I produced in the past.
Yourselves, on the otherhand, do just the opposite.
When an aspect of your thinking needs to be better
explained you refer to posts in the future, post
that have not yet been created, and even, as in
this case here, posts in the future being produced
by somebody other than the person telling me about
them.
Jim
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Haldane's Hangover"
- Previous message: Malcolm: "Re: Logic of kin selection"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "The Making of The King's Invisible Thread"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
