Re: Theories, models, and simplifications
From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Joe Felsenstein: "Re: Perpetually Perplexed"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: The Making of The King's Invisible Thread [REPOST]"
- Maybe in reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Next in thread: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Reply: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:38:27 -0500 (EST)
> > JE:-
> > Hoelzer has stated that b/c is a constant.
> > Do you agree/disagree?
> JM:-
> 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.
JE:-
Jim, you are sprouting rubbish to evade the question.
You seem to think that yourself and other people here
can say what they like and validly refuse to take
any responsibility for what they have said. Evasion
is not a part if the scientific method. All questions
have to be answered and all terms defined. To my
knowledge I have never knowingly refused to answer
a question that makes logical sense. I have defined
all my terms. OTOH you and others still refuse to define
c and have the gall to suggest that I have a different
understanding of b and c compared to everybody
else. Please provide:-
a) Your definition c.
b) What you think was Hamilton's definition of c.
Until you answer these two critical questions
discussion cannot proceed in an orderly way.
_______________________________________________________
As far as the specific question I asked is concerned
all you have to do is:
1) Define b and c
2) State if b/c is or is not a constant
ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS OF
b AND c.
If this is too much to ask of anybody then the
scientific method cannot work here.
_______________________________________________________
>snip<
> JM:-
> 1. My claim that carriers of the "gene for altruism" have higher
> Darwinian fitnesses than do non-carriers.
JE:-
Then the claim that the actor was altruistic in
paying c for b resources transferred to a number
recipients stands refuted. If the Darwinian
fitness of the actor increases and does not decrease
then altruism stands refuted. The only possible explanation
is that the act was mutualistic but the rule gave a
false reading. This is not surprising because the
sign of c employed by the rule to separate altruism from
mutualism remains entirely arbitrary. This is so because:
-------------- quote ----------------------------
sent Fri 28/01/2005 3:42
JE:-
What people seem desperate to evade is
the fact that Hamilton's rule only
takes an _arbitrary_ fitness sample from the
donor's total fitness. The reason why all
Neo Darwinian fitnesses remain ongoing is because the
total fitness of the donar has been _artificially_
deleted. This is also the
reason why no defined time frame exists for
measuring fitness within the rule and why
the sign of c must remain arbitrary. The only
_non_ arbitrary time frame that exists is the time
taken for one parent to complete reproducing
fertile forms into one population.
----------------------------------------------------
The above was confirmed by O'Hara:
--------------quote----------------------
JE:-
What is the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c?
If c was an abolute measure of fitness
then yes, a real difference exists. However
c is only a relative fitness cost and not
an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
difference?
BOH:-
As far as the rule is concerned, none.
----------- end quote --------------------
> JM:-
> 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.
JE:-
What I attribute to Popper is that any theory
must be refutable. The view that a constant term
must exist for a view to be refutable is my own
argument which can easily be proven by anybody who
can reason their way out of a paper bag.
Example:-
If E=Mc^2 but c is just a variable then
then the equation remains entirely arbitrary,
i.e. it makes mathematical but not scientific
sense. Only because c is a constant does
Einstein's equation make any sense.
When a constant does not appear then
one must be referred to by implication
or the view is just arbitrary.
You have agreed that when a constant is
deleted you zoom into a view like a
microscope. This type of model
allows you to see more clearly some
innards of the theory but it cannot
replace that theory. When the theory is
applied to nature the view must be taken
out from under the microscope so that
the deleted constant reappears. Theories
can only be validly applied to nature in
their entirety.
> JM:-
> 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.)
JE:-
It is just VERY BASIC.
A refutation is a prohibited observation of an
theory but a non verification is an allowed
observation from the same theory that was not
observed. Cause and effect can be reversed in
any theory. The reversal is called the anti-thesis.
The anti-thesis provides points of refutation
for the thesis. The sun centric and earth
centric theories are contradictory. Only
one of them can be correct. The constants
used in one cannot be used in the other.
Some observations of one must refute some
observations of the other otherwise the
views cannot be empirically separated.
> JM:-
> 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".
JE:-
Firstly is not "my" view of a constant
it is what any constant is within the
sciences. EK, who is probably IQ intelligent
and a mathematician cannot understand
that mass remains a constant within Newtonian
Mechanics. EK has no _scientific_ understanding
of what he is talking about. Mass is divisible
but no variables exist that can form it. Only
mass provides mass within Newtonian Mechanics
where the total mass within the universe
remains an unchanged total. Thus the amount
of mass employed within a question of physics
remains constant if mass is not added or
subtracted but this is not so in Einstein's
equations.
Relatedness r cannot be a constant if r is
just a probability or employs a statistical
mean. In r IBD it is just a probability.
Using regression the mean relatedness of the
population can be measured and r can
be a +/- comparison to that. Such a measure
is not a valid constant. Until relatedness
can be measured _scientifically_, i.e.
epistatic information that is heritable
becomes understood and is included within
r, relatedness only remains a very rough
guess.
____________________________________________
Fisher's deletion of epistatic information
deleted EMPIRICAL genomic gene fitnesses.
____________________________________________
Fisher's dictate defied empirical nature.
ALL genomic gene fitness are epistatic.
If you disagree please provide just one
example of a non epistatic (lineal) gene
fitness documented within nature.
When you delete all epistasis you delete
all known genomic gene fitnesses and
just go with a heuristic fitness.
Nature is the judge of truth within the
sciences and not Fisher. Until gene centric
Neo Darwinians come up with at least ONE
verification of a LINEAL genomic gene
fitness within NATURE, Hamilton's Rule which
is descended from Fisher's dictate of what is
heritable within nature defies empirical nature.
While Fisher's models were useful they
were hopelessly misused. This remains the
case to this very day. Hamilton's Rule
represents a terminal misuse of Fisher's
dictate.
> JM:-
> 4. My criticisms of the concept and practicality of your proposed
> experiment of refutation for Darwinism.
JE:-
No practical problems exist. Just take a
population of fruit flies and only allow
each parent to raise two offspring to
fertile adulthood and then remove the
parents. Fruit flies are fecund. They
reproduce large numbers of immature
forms. These can be kept separate.
When two become fertile remove all
the rest and repeat.
You asked how I would separate selected
changes from other changes. IF all
selected changes have been halted THEN
only random changes are now permitted.
In this situation the population should
decay. Over time the experiment will have
to be halted because NO viable offspring
will be reproduced for at least one parent.
This will verify that random variation
cannot provide evolution as Dr Moran
insists that it can.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@tpg.com.au
- Next message: Joe Felsenstein: "Re: Perpetually Perplexed"
- Previous message: John Edser: "Re: The Making of The King's Invisible Thread [REPOST]"
- Maybe in reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Next in thread: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Reply: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Theories, models, and simplifications"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
