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



"Jim McGinn" jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
> > Jim,
> > This type of rhetorical nonsense is just a waste of time. Two entirely
> valid
> > hypothesis were offered by Hoelzer and Edser as simple statements in the
> > English language.
> > However, they contradicted each other

> In what way do they contradict each other.

JE:-
This argument was provided in my 1st posting. I repeated it in my most
recent response to Guy within this thread.

> > JE:-
> > so only one of them
> > can be true. Therefore what remains to be done is testing at least one
> > of
> > them to refutation.

> What if they both test to refutation?

JE:-
Since they remain contradictory to each other one must refute before the
other. At this point in time this is all the process of refutation needs to
be concerned with. Refutation may eventually eliminate both hypothesis but
not without replacing both of them with an entirely different refutable
conjecture which must provide a contradiction allowing this process to be
repeated.

I reiterate:
The only way any hypothesis can be offered to another
person's mind is as a statement in a language that they understand
unless your argument is that we are supposed to be able to read minds.

>snip rhetoric<

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx







.