Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:10:24 -0500 (EST)
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dlft90$2frt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > Hamilton's law - at least the 1970 tautological
> > version - is not a law of nature. It is a theorem of mathematics.
>
> You're claiming (or proposing?) Hamilton's Rule to be, "a theorem of
> mathematics?" What do you mean by this?
Claiming.
I mean just what I say. For a sketch proof of this theorem, see NAS's
posting of a few months ago which he made to call your $10,000 prize
bluff. I notice that you never responded.
Or, see Hamilton's 1970 paper and follow the reference therein to the
Price paper. Those will provide a more detailed proof.
I refer to these results as mathematics, rather than biology, because
there are no biological laws or assumptions embedded in the derivation.
(Well, I suppose there is a kind of assumption of discrete generations.)
> > But that doesn't mean that it is useless to scientists. Science makes use
> > of a variety of propositions with no inherent physical content -
> > Liouvilles's theorem, Bayes's theorem, Wigner's CPT theorem, etc.
>
> I think you need to be extremely explicit with respect to explaining
> what you mean by the phrase, "Science makes use of a variety of
> propositions with no inherent physical content." This phrase leaves
> you vulnerable to the accusation
> that you are proposing solutions that are spiritualistic.
Well, I would have thought that my examples would quash that line of
thought. What exactly do you see as 'spiritualistic' about Liouville's
theorem? Or the CPT theorem? There is a kind of Liebnizian metaphysics
attached to some applications of Bayes's theorem, but I would never call
it 'spiritualistic'.
.
- References:
- Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- From: John Edser
- Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- From: Jim McGinn
- Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Vent Life? Not the O2 dependent part
- Previous by thread: Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- Next by thread: Re: Removing Lewontin's Fallacy From Hamilton's Rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|