Re: rb+c-b > cmax
From: Guy Hoelzer (hoelzer_at_unr.edu)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: The Term for Directed "Natural Selection"?"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:28:51 -0500 (EST)
John,
in article cv00ua$co2$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at edser@tpg.com.au
wrote on 2/16/05 9:46 AM:
> Please add the following CORRECTION:-
>
>> JM:-
>> Have you considered
>> what this formula reduces to in the limiting case where altruism is
>> very weak or very rare and b and c both go to zero?
>
> JE:-
>
> rb+c-b > cmax
>
> where b=0 and c=0
>
> rb > cmax
>
> Again any altruism stands _refuted_.
You and I have established that we disagree about the role of Popperian
refutation in science, but we never really haggled over the definition of
refutation. If you think that the exercise you wrote above is an example of
refutation, then we must also disagree on what "refutation" means or
requires. Can you explain how you think this argument constitutes a
refutation of the existence of altruism?
Guy Hoelzer
- Next message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: The Term for Directed "Natural Selection"?"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- In reply to: John Edser: "Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- Maybe reply: John Edser: "Re: Re: rb+c-b > cmax"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|