Re: The Irony of Hamilton's Success

From: Claudius (claudius_denk_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:41:39 -0500 (EST)

Joe Felsenstein wrote:
> Claudius <claudius_denk@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I don't recall "abandoning" anybody's arguments or making
> "desperate attempts to reestablish semantic ambiguity".
> But like a lot of the posters here I kept trying to explain
> Hamilton's Rule so even the McGinn/Claudius duo could understand
> it. Hamilton and Maynard Smith are not available, nor does
> Roughgarden post here. But my explanation of a simple case in
> which McGinn's arguments are refuted is available as the first
> two posts in the thread "Logic of kin selection". If there is
> a step in my derivation of c < (1/4)b that is wrong or unclear,
> just tell me which sentence it is in those posts and I'll clear
> this up, and if wrong, admit it. Until some problem is pointed
> out in that derivation, McGinn remains proven wrong.

Are you suggesting that if the derivation provides us
with a result that we should accept that as evidence
that Hamilton's rule is valid and ignore the fact that
the semantics don't make sense?

If your answer to this first question is 'yes' let me
ask you a second question: Do you consider your
approach on this to be consistent with standard
scientific practices?

> And gosh, is it "politics" to ask that when people say there is
> a problem, that they point out exactly where?

But it seems you are doing nothing but ignoring our
objections.

[moderator's note: And it seems that you, like Another Poster Who
Has Mercifully Fallen Silent, do nothing but pose questions,
rather than saying something. As my late grandpa would roar,
"Piss or get off the pot!". Just trying to keep things moving
along here. - JAH]

Regards,

CD