Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)



"Jim McGinn" jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-

> > JE:-
> > Classical group centric selection and Darwinian organism centric
> selection
> > are very precise single level theories


> Precise? Theories?

JE:-
These and the words you disputed below are valid words of the English
language that can looked up in any dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary


Precise: meeting the highest standard of accuracy.

Theory: an idea that is the starting point for making a case or conducting
an investigation.

1) My use of precision within evolutionary theory:
By precise I mean organism centric Darwinism and group selection define
single but entirely different biological levels of selection which can be
identified and counted in nature. The Darwinian theory very strictly defines
it's single level of selection to be: the fertile form. Therefore Darwinism
totals fertile forms reproduced over organism generations as a precise
fitness count per organism centric parent. OTOH classical group selection
defines it's ingle level to be: one organism population. Therefore it totals
organism populations reproduced over organism population generations as a
precise fitness count for each organism centric parent. The reason why each
selectee type has to be fertile is self evident: a sterile form cannot pass
on any heritable information to the next generation of its own type.

2) My use of a theory:
I employ the Popperian concept of a valid theory of nature which is any
conjecture that can be refuted in nature (empirically). I add that a valid
theory must also be able to be verified or refuted where I also ague an
exact point of refutation will be some proposed constant term within the
refutable conjecture.


> Are units of measuring distance, let's say inches, precise, theories?
> Plainly this is nonsensical. Units are assumptions about the
> rationality of measuring some aspect of reality. Measurements can be
> precise or inaccurate. And there's nothing theoretical about a unit of
> measure.

JE:-
Objective units are conventions which always remain self consistent to the
theory under test.

Example:
If you define just a two dimensional universe on a flat *** of paper then
you must also define conventional units that can measure it to verification
or refutation where the units you propose cannot contradict the theory under
test. In this particular case these units can validly be any conventional
lineal measure (centimeters, inches etc) which remain sufficient to measure
the defined 2D space under test where one linear measuring convention must
be able to be converted into any other to give the same result. Because this
universe is defined to only be 2D, squares of lineal measures remain valid
but cubes of it are not. Therefore arguing cubic measures within a 2D
universe contradicts the proposition (is not self consistent to a just a 2D
universe) so it is not a valid measure and cannot be used. Of course,
identifying that the paper has thickness providing a 3rd dimension refutes
the 2D while at the same time verifying the 3D proposition allowing the
cubic measure. However, this refutation does not disallow the 2D universe to
be validly employed as a useful simplified model of a 3D universe, if and
only if, the model does not contest and replace the theory it was simplified
from.

>snip<

> > JE:-
> > which define just the one but
> > different and therefore contesting INDEPENDENT levels of selection

> Contesting? INDEPENDENT?

JE:-
Contest: DISPUTE, CHALLENGE

Independent: not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others :
SELF-GOVERNING.

Any independent level of selection cannot also be a dependent level simply
because they are contradictory terms. Because classical group selection and
classical Darwinism are both mono level theories where each defines a
different mono level of selection then they must contest each other, i.e.
they both cannot be true within nature. Independent levels can be modeled as
intersecting sets.

> > JE:-
> > within
> > each theory. They incorporate
>
> Incorporate? dependent?

JE:-
Again, these are just basic words of the English language:

Incorporate: to unite or work into something already existent so as to form
an indistinguishable whole.

Dependent: determined by something else, i.e. is not independent.

Dependent levels of selection are incorporated within the one, same
independent level so all dependent levels are simultaneously selected at the
one same independent level. Dependent levels can be modeled as nested sets.

>snip<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx




.

Quantcast