Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:37:11 -0400 (EDT)
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> JM:-
>snip<
> ReMine CLAIMS that Felselstein proposed zero
> costs.
> Felsenstein considers this a distortion.
>snip<
JE:-
Felsenstein could easily clear up such a basic point but he refuses to
do so. He can only be proposing total gross cost which cannot be zero or
a relative net cost which can be zero. Everything that I have read here
that has been written by Felsenstein including the papers of his that I
have access to, only employ relative propositions. He never states what
any of his relative propositions are actually relative to. It appears
this is the "modus opperandi" of gene centric model builders who are
primarily mathematicians. Of course what they are all relative to is the
BIOLOGICAL propositions of the theory the mathematical model was
simplified/oversimplified from. Specifically: BIOLOGICAL FITNESS as it
can be EMPIRICALLY measured within NATURE on a REFUTABLE basis.
The reason why Felsenstein will never discuss the critical difference
that does exist between a theory and any model derived from it is
because he does not wish to define the proper limits of the models he
employs within the biological sciences. It appears to me that he and
many others here, perhaps including yourself, wish to write themselves a
blank cheque for model usage even to the extent of misusing the model to
usurp the theory the model was simplified/oversimplified from.
> > JE:-
> > ... so Felsenstein and not myself is
> > required to clarify if that cost is just a zero gross total payment
OR a
> > cost that represents a net resultant zero relative cost where
without
> > exception, more than a zero payment has to be paid. However,
Felsenstein
> > _consistently refuses_ to define what his proposed zero relative net
> > cost remains relative to.
> JM:-
> And once again, Edser, by pure logic, without any data at all, has
come
> to the conclusion that Felsenstein's cost concept is a "relative net
cost"
> concept.
JE:-
Yes. Unless Felsenstein is foolish enough to claim a total gross cost as
his zero cost of substitution then he can only be claiming a net
relative cost to be zero. This being the case he is _required_ to state
what the net zero relative cost he is proposing is actually relative to.
His track record speaks for itself. Felsenstein has always refused to
state what his relative propositions are actually relative to. You do
not have to believe me, simply ask him yourself. He will either not
respond at all or he will provide an ambiguous answer, i.e. yet another
relative proposition as an answer. In such a situation sbe reader's can
_reasonably_ conclude that Felsenstein is simply playing political
evasion within the sciences on this issue.
>snip<
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
- Next by Date: Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
- Previous by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Next by thread: Re: The Anti Science Art Of Evasion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
