Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of


Jim McGinn wrote:
> name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > name_and_address_supplied@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Jim, I ordinarily wouldn't take your bait. There is simply no way of
> > reasoning with you. Plus, there is no danger of anyone taking seriously
> > your snipes at me. You lost any credibility we might have once
> > generously given to you when you embarked on the absurd "probabilities
> > are not dimensionless numbers" rant.
> >
> > However, this may be a good way of clarifying the historical
> > development of social evolution theory, for any interested onlookers
> > who may be following this. So here goes.
> >
> > > > HR is general enough to cover any social action. And it tells us the
> > > > direction of selection. We use this, along with Hamilton's hypothesis,
> > > > to see what we predict organisms to be doing. We empirically test to
> > > > see if this is the case.
> > >
> > > I think your comments here indicate that your thinking is so vague
> > > that you don't really know why you think what you think.
> >
> > In what way are my comments vague? Fair enough if you think they are
> > wrong, but I am intrigued to hear why they are supposed to be vague. I
> > have suggested that:
> >
> > (1) Hamilton used a mathematical identity (a truism) supplied by Price
> > to write a mathematically-true statement about the action of selection
> > on a social trait. The result is Hamilton's rule (HR).
>
> This is a nonsense statement. It has no meaning.

What do you mean it has no meaning? Price's theorem describes an
identity, a mathematically true statement that follows directly from
definitions given. Hamilton showed that, when applied to social
evolution, we obtain a special case of the identity which he called
Hamilton's rule. What is meaningless about that?

Josh -- why are you letting him post this abuse of netiquette to this
newsgroup?

> > (2) Hamilton, being firmly in the adaptationist camp, has further
> > hypothesized that selection is the only important influence on social
> > evolution, so that we may treat HR as if it is a complete description
> > of the direction of evolution for social traits.
>
> What? Plainly you are employing pseudo-logic to come to the conclusion
> that HR describes the origins of all social traits.

I said nothing about origins. I make no such claims.

> We may determine the
> > endpoints of evolution mathematically using HR, and Hamilton is
> > suggesting that this is what we will observe in nature.
>
> He can suggest whatever he wants. But why should we accept it?

(1) You do not have to accept it.

(2) You can go out and test this hypothesis empirically.

(3) People do go out and test the hypothesis empirically, and it seems
to do rather well in these tests.

> > I have further suggested that since HR is a mathematically-true
> > statement, it does not need to be empirically test.
>
> How convenient. If this isn't circular reasoning I don't know what is.

Please explain why this is circular. Please explain what the point of
empirically testing a mathematical truth is, given that we have a
mathematical proof for that mathematical truth.

> Also, I have argued
> > that Hamilton's prediction that full evolutionary change is adequately
> > captured by HR, so that we may use HR to predict actual organism social
> > behaviour, is not tautological. It will almost certainly be wrong, in
> > the sense that it will not generally be exactly correct. I have
> > suggested, however, that the fit between these predictions and
> > observations of the natural world is astounding -- in a very real
> > quantitative sense, Hamilton's hypothesis (2) has been tested and has
> > passed the test with flying colours.
>
> So we should all just take your word for it and ignore the fact that
> when its logic is examined nobody can make sense of it.

This isn't about taking my word for anything. The point is that kin
selection theory makes testable predictions, these predictions are
routinely tested, and the predictions are often rather close to the
empirical observations.

> >
> > What is it exactly that you do not agree with here, or that you find
> > vague?
> >
> > > Everybody
> > > agrees that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness.
> >
> > What? As outlined above, this should not generally be exactly correct.
>
> ?

Inclusive fitness, the maximand, is derived from considering the
effects of selection only. To the extent that other forces -- drift,
mutation, migration pressure, etc -- influence the social behaviours of
organisms, then organisms should not behave exactly as if they were
maximizing their inclusive fitness.

I am trying to reason with you here, Jim. But it is patently obvious
that you do not understand the meaning of "inclusive fitness", and that
you have not actually taken the time to read up on this literature that
you are so keen to demonstrate is deeply flawed.

> > > HR was
> > > proposed as a way of explaining the underlying mechanics of this
> > > observation.
> >
> > This is incorrect. Inclusive fitness was derived from HR. HR came
> > first, was derived from a gene's-eye-view approach, and afterwards
> > Hamilton used HR to generate an individual maximand, which he termed
> > "inclusive fitness".
>
> More meaningless nonsense.

Easy for you to say. Less easy for me, and other readers, to discern
why. Please expand on why you find the above "meaningless nonsense".

> > > As John indicates, it's plainly tautological to suggest
> > > that the observation that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness
> > > verifies HR.
> >
> > And it is plain from your comment that you have not read what I have
> > written. HR is a mathematically true statement. It does not need to be
> > verified.
>
> Pseudo-logic.

Why aren't you in a maths newsgroup urging the partipants there that
they need to be going out and looking for circles, in order to
empirically verify that the ratio of the circumferance to the diameter
is pi? What is so special about the mathematical truth that is
Hamilton's rule that it warrants the venting of your spleen?

> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The fig wasps might be doing something different from the prediciton.
> > > > There is no reason why they should not, except that HR suggests that
> > > > selection will favour them to obey the prediction. I'm failing to see
> > > > why this doesn't count as a valid test of kin selection theory.
> > >
> > > > Please explain why, if HR is wrong, the fig wasps appear to have been
> > > > taken in by it. And not just the fig wasps. HR allows exceptionally
> > > > well-verified predictions of nature. As I have repeatedly said, isn't
> > > > this the ultimate test of theory?
> > >
> > > No. It's not. The Ptolemaic theory of celestial motion does
> > > a good job of predicting the location of many planets and
> > > stars. This fact doesn't erase the fact that its underlying
> > > assumptions have been disproven.
> >
> > A bad analogy.
>
> It's a perfect analogy. You confirmed it above.

We'll see.

> > We also have the Copernican hypothesis of celestial
> > motion, that does *better*. It explains more of the observations than
> > the Ptolemaic hypothesis. What other, better hypothesis of social
> > evolution do you have in mind as a replacement?
>
> Group selection.

Group selection and kin selection are simply different ways of seeing
the same evolutionary process. If you disagree with this, then perhaps
I have misunderstood what you mean by "group selection".

If this is an entirely semantic issue, Jim, then I simply cannot be
bothered. The levels-of-selection debate is mathematically and
empirically empty, and I see no point in helping to perpetuate it.

> > Although, above, you
> > seem to be of the opinion that organisms do indeed maximize their
> > inclusive fitness. So I don't know what you are trying to say here. It
> > is you who is being vague, Jim.
> >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > As I've said, we have the fig wasps on our side. Our rule is not wrong.
> > > > It is empirically supported.
> > >
> > > Empirically supported? Does the fact that 15th century explorers
> > > employed ptolemaic celestial motion to navigate the seas serve as
> > > empirical support for it's underlying assumptions? (Please make a
> > > special effort to not evade this question.)
> >
> > Many powerful, predictive and successful theories are based on
> > assumptions that are not properly valid. For example, many analytical
> > techniques in evolutionary theory assume vanishing genetic variation,
> > to simplify the mathematics. Clearly this is invalid, in the sense that
> > there is often quite a bit of genetic variation in natural populations.
> > Yet the predictions from this theory are typically very accurate. Here,
> > although the assumptions are not held exactly, they are justified on
> > the basis that the break from these assumptions does not generally
> > matter.
> >
> > To bring this back to social evolution, a demonstration that allele
> > frequency change in natural population is not deterministic, i.e. that
> > it has a stochastic element, will not bring down the foundations of
> > social evolution theory, even if the latter is based on the assumption
> > that allele frequency change is deterministic.

I notice you have not responded to the above.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of
    ... evolution, so that we may treat HR as if it is a complete description ... I have further suggested that since HR is a mathematically-true ... > agrees that lifeforms maximize their inclusive fitness. ... >> well-verified predictions of nature. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of
    ... >>> Jim, I ordinarily wouldn't take your bait. ... >>> development of social evolution theory, ... >>> hypothesized that selection is the only important influence on social ... >>> to simplify the mathematics. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of
    ... >>> direction of selection. ... > to write a mathematically-true statement about the action of selection ... > evolution, so that we may treat HR as if it is a complete description ... >>> selection will favour them to obey the prediction. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Irrefutable evidence?
    ... talk the talk of a scientist truly be a Creationists and remain honest to ... What single discovery or piece of evidence most strongly ... argument for evolution to present to a Creationist who has a understanding ... Jim Fisher ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Irrefutable evidence?
    ... brainwashed by his upbringing (or terrified by his loving God) that he will ... talk the talk of a scientist truly be a Creationists and remain honest to ... argument for evolution to present to a Creationist who has a understanding ... Jim Fisher ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading