Re: Theories, models, and simplifications

From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:20:58 -0500 (EST)

"John Edser" <edser@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:ctk7vs$137q$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

> Hoelzer has stated that b/c is a constant.
> Do you agree/disagree?

John,

Among the many disagreeable features of your methodology, this tactic
is probably the most reprehensible. You take something that someone
has written, misinterpret it, and then demand that innocent bystanders
agree or disagree. And in this case, I very much doubt that Guy
actually stated that. And, if he did, I am almost certain that he
has a different understanding of "b", "c", and "constant" than you
do.

I'm just not going to play that game, John. If you wish to make your
own argument that b/c is a constant, and then to tell us what you
think the value of the constant is, please do so. I may choose to
respond to that approach.

And, in the meantime, you might consider responding to some of the
issues I have raised recently:

1. My claim that carriers of the "gene for altruism" have higher
Darwinian fitnesses than do non-carriers.

2. My example of the orbit of Mercury as a counter-example to
your insistence that a refutable model must contain a constant.
(Incidentally, you seem to attribute this idea to Popper. I have
"The Logic of Scientific Discovery" handy now. Could you point out
where he discusses this idea? Or is it your own "improvement" of
Popper? Also, could you point out where he distinguishes refutations
from non-verifications? I apparently don't yet understand this
distinction.)

3. My suggestion that r is the "missing constant" in Hamilton's
rule. I make this suggestion somewhat hesitantly, since my
understanding of what you mean by a "constant" is still new and
untested. But, based on what I understand of your thinking, it
seems to me that saying "r is the constant in Hamilton" makes at
least as much sense as saying "fitness is the constant in Darwin".

4. My criticisms of the concept and practicality of your proposed
experiment of refutation for Darwinism.

Until you respond to these points, I see little reason why I
should obediently march to your agenda.

Loading