Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:32:08 -0400 (EDT)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx>
Jim McGinn wrote:-
> Hamilton assumed that genes IBD = R. He never
> substantiated it. Nor did he even make the
> slightest effort to test it. The same can be said
> for all the faithful followers of conventional
> vagueness. You'll note that Josh, Tim, et. al.
> aren't making the slightest effort to test their
> definition of a gene and show that it bears out the
> truth of HR. Instead they've just deluded
> themselves into thinking that since gene cannot be
> delineated that therefore HR can't be refuted. But
> what they don't understand is that the onus of proof
> is on the person that submits that theory. The fact
> is that HR cannot be substantiated.
JE:-
Can I make a suggestion? Why not simply accept the heuristic on face value
and then see how far it takes you, as however, a rational proposition of
science and NOT as just a logical proposition of mathematics? This will not
be very far but no matter, just do it and prove your lack of bias via this
action. Rather than riling negatively against the misuse of HR, this
approach allows you to define the exact truth domain for HR, i.e. it
represents an entirely positive approach so you cannot be accused of being
biased against the rule. Nobody here will like the tiny size of the truth
domain of HR but that in another story ENTIRELY. The first hurdle is to
unambiguously and exactly define what the rule means as empirical science.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Empirically Measuring Mutualism In Man
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
