Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)


John Edser wrote:
> name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
>
> Subject: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
>
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > The problem is that you are giving a (flawed) biological
> > > interpretation
> > > > of a simple mathematical manipulation. I don't know what is
> supposed
> > > to
> > > > have been achieved by switching the condition rb>c to the
> equivalent
> > > > condition -rb<-c, however I can say that: (1) these conditions are
> > > > exactly equivalent, and (2) no changes have been made to the signs
> of
> > > > the variables r, b and c.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > NAS simply evades the issue of the failure of Hamilton et al to
> provide
> > > non fraudulent fitness accounting. EITHER -c within -rb<-c
> represents a
> > > debit or it represents a CREDIT for Hamilton's only proactive actor.
>
> > NAS:-
> > c is the amount debited. Therefore we can regard -c as the amount
> > credited to the actor. Debiting c is mathematically and biologically
> > equivalent to crediting -c. So, I would have to answer that -c is
> > indeed a credit.
>
> JE:-
> YOU HAVE TO "regard -c as the amount credited to the actor" IN BOTH
> RULES, i.e. the mathematical signs of "+" and "-" must book keep in
> exactly the same way in either rule even if all fitnesses must remain
> >0.

Yes, -c is the amount credited to the actor in both rules. c is the
amount debited from the actor in both rules.

> It is just biologically absurd for you to claim that "Debiting c is
> mathematically and biologically equivalent to crediting -c".

Example: an actor's fitness would be 1 in the absence of an altruistic
act, and altruism reduces the actor's fitness to 0.9. Thus, we can
equivalently say that the actor has been debited an amount 0.1 (1 - 0.1
= 0.9) or that the actor has been credited an amount -0.1 (1 + -0.1 =
0.9). Mathematically, these are equivalent and meaningful approaches.
Biologically, nothing has changed. So what is your problem?

> It is
> MATHEMATICALLY equivalent but it is not BIOLOGICALLY equivalent. Here is
> the proof: If you receive $50 from me then I am debited $50 but you are
> credited $50 where all credits = debits mathematically. This does NOT
> mean that it does not matter WHO you debit and credit to.

If I receive 50 USD from you, then I am credited +50 USD and you are
credited -50 USD. Equivalently, you are debited +50 USD and I am
debited -50 USD. It is incorrect to say that "all credits [equal]
debits". The credit to me is +50 USD, and the debit to me is -50 USD.
+50 =/= -50. However, it is true that the credit to me is equal to the
debit to you, in this case: +50 USD = +50 USD. In general, in social
evolution, the amount lost by the donor and the amount gained by the
recipient need not be equal.

> If c is a credit and d a debit:
>
> 50c = 50d
>
> 50c-50d = 0
>
> The fact is mathematics alone cannot tell you who is to debited and who
> is to credited because a credit equals a debit. All that idiotic
> mathematics knows is that $50 moved SOMEWHERE.

John, this is hilarious. I'm tempted to take this argument to a
mathematics newsgroup and see what they make of it. But of course you
won't be interested in what mathematicians have to say, will you? Which
makes me think -- unless you acknowledge that you are really on your
own in this, um, different view of reality, then can you suggest an
intellectual community which you expect will agree with you and
understand what you are getting at? Philosophy of science, perhaps? In
which case, we can perhaps take the argument to the appropriate forum,
and see if you get any support there. How about it?

> Your rationale "Debiting c is mathematically and biologically equivalent
> to crediting -c" is exactly the same rationale that discredited Enron
> accountants employed to change debits into credits, but this time it is
> biologically fraudulent.

This is where your precious words fail you, John. A debit of an amount
x can be equivalently viewed as a credit of an amount -x. What we have
done is shown that subtracting a positive quantity is equivalent to
adding a negative quantity. This is in fact true by definition -- it is
how we define subtraction! Your problem is that you implicitly switch
from defining "debit" as "the amount that is deducted, which may be
positive or negative" to "the deduction of a positive amount".
Mathematics helps to clarify; I have made explicit where I am referring
to x<0 or -x. However, your mathematical abilities are so limited that
you cannot see the difference between x<0 and -x. It is your
understanding of the mathematics, and not the mathematics itself, which
are flawed.

I must say, I have never seen anyone invoke Godel to explain why they
can't do their sums. It would be funny were it not so tragic.

> > > JE:-
> > > I
> > > have provided a DETAILED explanation as to who must do what to whom
> > > within the transformed rule only allowing the -c to represent an
> actor
> > > CREDIT contradicting NAS's claim that it represents an actor debit.
>
> > NAS:-
> > c is the debit. -c can be regarded as the credit.
>
> JE:-
> You have reversed your previous argument.

No; the apparent reversal is due to the ambiguity in your understanding
of the words "debit" and "credit".

> > > JE:-
> > > So
> > > what detailed explanation does NAS provide as his rebuttal? What
> parts
> > > of my explanation does he empirically refute? Absolutely nothing. No
> > > detailed biological explanation of who is doing what to who
> according to
> > > NAS to allow the -c to represent a debit within the transformed
> rule,
> > > just more hopeless arguments from authority: NAS is correct and that
> is
> > > it. Why is he correct? Only because the mathematics' produces the
> same
> > > _numerical_ result. If NAS insists I will provide as many examples
> of
> > > opposing propositions providing exactly the same numerical answer as
> he
> > > may require to prove to him that the same numerical answer remains
> > > insufficient to claim that the rule and the transformed rule
> represent
> > > the same SELECTIVE EVENT.
>
> > NAS:-
> > When did I suggest that -c represents the debit?
>
> JE:-
> Please do you own research on what you wrote and then come back with an
> apology to sbe. Please note: your integrity hangs on your action in this
> regard, i.e. if you do not do so it can be proven that you have no
> integrity.

Don't be ridiculous, John. If you claim I have made a mistake, have the
decency to point it out.

> > > > NAS:-
> > > > If c is positive in rb>c then c is also
> > > > positive in our re-arranged rule -rb<-c. Thus, the positive cost
> > > > remains a positive cost, and the altruism remains altruism. There
> is
> > > no
> > > > sleight of the hand by any Enron accountant, no debit has
> miraculously
> > > > been turned into a credit. c was positive, c is still positive. I
> > > don't
> > > > know what more I can say.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Just try out for size that "whatever it is that is transferred" to
> allow
> > > b to be a fitness is actually moving IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION
> WITHIN
> > > THE TRANSFORMED RULE COMPARED TO THE NON TRANSFORMED RULE.
>
> > NAS:-
> > But in deriving the transformed rule we are implicitly assuming that c
> > and b and r are fixed quantities?
>
> JE:-
> They are. However the movement of resources that underpin these
> fitnesses remain FLUID. It just happens that the resource movement that
> limits fitness IS CONVENIENTLY DELETED FROM THE RULE.

These details are not deleted. They are implicit. Noone has claimed
that r, b and c can each take any possible value in any particular
model. Hamilton's rule is a general result. If I am interested in a
particular question, such as the evolution of some trait x, then I can
model this by defining functions c[x] and b[x]. The details of how
investment into x determines personal costs and the benefits to social
partners are described in these functions.

For example, say that investing in some amount of altruism x costs the
actor an amount x, i.e. c[x] = x, and it results in an increase in his
brother's (r = 0.5) fitness x^(1/2), i.e. b[x] = x^(1/2). Then the an
increase in altruism is favoured when

r b > c

=> 0.5 * x^(1/2) > x

=> x < 1/4.

Applying r b < c to determine when a decrease in the trait is favoured
by selection, we obtain

x > 1/4.

Thus, in this simple model, the ESS is at x* = 1/4.

> >snip<
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Yes, all refutable theories of nature have to be firstly written
> > > entirely in words simply because mathematics has been proven not to
> be a
> > > self consistent body of knowledge.
>
> > NAS:-
> > I suppose you refer to Godel's work? In which case, verbal systems
> also
> > contain undecideable statements, so I don't see why you should elevate
> > words above maths.
>
> JE:-
> ONLY WORDS can define absolute assumptions. An absolute assumption is
> only ASSUMED not to be relative to anything at all. Please note that an
> absolute assumption is NOT an absolute simply because it is just an
> assumption. For it to be a scientifically valid assumption it must be
> refutable. Once defined IN WORDS an absolute assumption can be
> transposed into mathematics as a constant. Mathematics has NO HOPE AT
> ALL of separating a variable from a constant all on its own. This
> critical difference has to be defined IN WORDS.

At the end of the day, it's all about explaining biological variation,
isn't it. That has to be the ultimate test of validity of a scientific
argument in the biological sciences. Does anything you have said help
us to explain what organisms are up to in the natural world? Can you
point out a single instance where neodarwinism makes a prediction that
differs from the corresponding prediction of your approach, where your
prediction has a better fit with the empirical observations. Examples,
please.

> > > > snip hopeless rhetoric<
>
> > > > > > > JE:-
> > > > > > > Integrity entirely depends the use of reason to establish
> which
> > > > > position
> > > > > > > stands refuted which is either my position OR the Neo
> Darwinian
> > > > > > > establishment that you choose to side with. Any evasion of
> > > > > refutation
> > > > > > > employed by myself, yourself or the Neo Darwinistic
> > > establishment
> > > > > > > provides proof of a lack of integrity by the evader. Ok?
>
> > > > > > NAS
> > > > > > No-K.
>
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > I take the above response to mean "no". It seems to me that NAS
> is
> > > > > indicating that he holds the Popperian process of refutation in
> > > contempt
> > > > > which is just as well because only by evading this process can
> NAS
> > > > > continue to maintain a such hopeless _contradictory_ fitness
> > > stance.
>
> > NAS:-
> > Just because you name-drop Popper in your gibberish does not mean that
> > it is any less gibberish.
>
> JE:-
> Stop behaving like a spoilt child who has been protected from reality
> for far too long. EITHER agree that your propositions of fitness
> accounting re: Hamilton's Rule entirely contradict mine so that
> OBVIOUSLY only one of us can be correct and then proceed to test EITHER
> proposition to refutation OR throw out the entire process of refutation
> (as Dr Hoelzer has done) in order to protect yourself and the gene
> centric Neo Darwinistic position you represent from the process of
> refutation.

You don't have a consistent view as far as I have been able to tell. I
repeatedly ask you for worked examples, so I can see your logic in
action, and you keep ignoring me.

> > > > NAS:_
> > > > Lets not rush ahead, John. Before tearing down neodarwinism, you
> must
> > > > first understand what neodarwinism is. You do not understand
> > > > neodarwinism. I suggest you do a bit of reading, and then get back
> to
> > > > us.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > "Rush ahead?" Stop again evading the issue and agree OR disagree
> that
> > > one of our views must refute in favour of another!
> > > The validity of Hamilton's Rule represents a very fair test of the
> > > validity of Neo Darwinism. EITHER -c within Hamilton's transformed
> rule
> > > represents a credit OR it represents a debit. I have provided a
> detailed
> > > proof as to why the -c within -rb<-c can only represent an actor
> credit.
> > > You provided absolutely nothing except a (hopeless) dictate that it
> was
> > > an actor debit. Please provide your (entirely missing) PROOF.
>
> > NAS:-
> > -c represents the amount that is credited.
>
> JE:-
> Yes, but now you have contradicted your previous argument. This means
> your argument is refuted.

Correction: ASSUMING that I have contradicted my previous argument,
THEN my argument is refuted. The onus is now on you to provide evidence
that I have contradicted my previous argument.

> > NAS:-
> > If c is positive (i.e.
> > altruism or spite) then the credit -c is a negative quantity. It might
> > be preferrable to refer to this negative credit as a debit. I don't
> > really care.
>
> JE:-
> You "don't really care" ?
> So why don't you start your own school of Enron fitness accounting for
> evolutionary theory? Sorry, Hamilton et al already has! It has been a
> going concern for over 50 years propped up by government funds (of
> course).

I understand your hatred of mathematics, John. Mathematics is
transparent, unambiguous, and not coloured by emotion. It is far easier
for you to obscure an argument if you conduct it verbally, throwing in
random insults along the way.

To address what you have written above: I must ask you to:-

1) State explicitly how the mathematics of kin selection is an example
of "Enron accounting", with reference to actual kin selection arguments
and actual Enron practices.

2) Then demonstrate that this aspect of Enron accounting is different
from standard accounting, explaining how this precipitated into the
Enron fiasco. You need to do this because there are bound to be
similarities between these Enron accountants that you love to demonise
and, well, most people! I have it on good authority that many of the
Enron accountants have eyes. Does that mean we should tear out our
eyes? I also hear that many of them wore shoes. That had shoe laces! Do
you get the idea?

3) Finally, demonstrate that the "Enron practices" of kin selection
workers has led to a similar fiasco in the biological sciences. Explain
exactly what has happened, and why this is bad.

And, by the way, 50 years ago it was 1955. I don't think Hamilton had
even begun his undergraduate degree at that time, let alone set up a
school of evil neodarwinian thinking paid for by government money.


.

Quantcast