Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- From: "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:02:54 -0400 (EDT)
"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:djn36h$1kjs$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> William Morse wdmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
>> You may want to note that E Kurtz was responding to John Edser's post,
>> and accusing John of being an idiot. I do agree that while John is
>> exasperating, and has on occasion made personal attacks himself, ad
>> hominem arguments have no place on the newsgroup.
Bill, you and eye see I to I on ad hominem. You are right. John was the
target of a personal attack... not the perpetrator. If we have value to
add -- whether in support of another's thoughts or assertions or in
repudiation of them -- we show respect for the higher cause of friendly
debate and mutual learning by
addressing the issues, rather than the person. Often we do not really know
the person. Some of us, if we wanted to brag, might have accomplished a lot
more than others might guess.
There are news groups where the participants do nothing but trade personal
insults.
John's heart is in the right place on the respect issue; and it is no
coincidence that he signs off on his messages with "Regards." He means it.
>
> JE:
> I would like to point out that stating that something is "absurd" is not a
> "personal attack" yet it is incorrectly taken to be so by many here. Also,
> I
> do not consider just a humorous description of population genetics as a
> "Mad
> Hatter's Tea Party" to be an _unwarranted_ attack on population genetics.
> I
> do not consider calling Prof. Felsenstein "The Pope of Neo Darwinism to be
> a
> personal attack on him, just a lampooning of what I continue to argue to
> be
> Felsenstein's consistent and utter misuse of oversimplified models within
> evolutionary theory produced by Felsenstein et al throwing out Karl
> Poppers
> most basic requirement: theories of nature must remain refutable.
> Hamilton's
> Rule remains not refutable yet it is allowed to contest, win against and
> finally replace refutable Darwinism by only HEURISTICALLY forcing organism
> fitness altruism at the Darwinian level of selection.
>
>> I had long thought, as EKurtz has argued, that Zeno's paradox was
>> adequately resolved by the theory of limits. However, I do remember an
>> article a number of years ago in Scientific American that challenged this
>> resolution, as you have done. Unfortunately I am not a good enough
>> theoretical mathematician to comment more, and in any case I don't think
>> the discussion belongs on sbe. However, I have enjoyed your further
>> thought experiments on Achilles-tortoise races.
>
> JE:-
> The paradox was never _empirically_ based (none of them ever are).
(SNIP)
But, John, it is I who have objected to the claim that a formula is
empirically based when its portent cannot be (or, at least... is not yet)
articulated in terms of empirical applications. This whole Hamilton's Rule
issue strikcs me as arguing numbers.
In terms of what those numbers apply to... what DO they apply to?
As always, I have the perhaps strange opinion that science is not what
scientists talk about so much as what they DO. Accordingly, what I am
trying to understand is what you would have researchers DO toward resolving
something one way or the other on Hamilton's Rule. That is where the
answers come from -- isn't it?
g
>
> Regards,
>
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher
>
> edser@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- From: John Edser
- Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Paper: Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's Rule is Xeno's Paradox ( was Re: Underestimating
- Next by thread: Bizarre timewarp in cyberspace
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
