Re: Hamilton's Rule: the unworked case of more than one actor.


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dpkvt4$11ie$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > JM:-
> > John, I do not think that your clarification clarified. I wrote
> > "b is organism centric". You wrote "If b is organism centric then
> > b is required to be divided by n otherwise b remains group centric."
>
> JE:-
> Then what I wrote remains clear and unambiguous.
>
>
> > After reading your 'clarification', I can only assume that what
> > you really mean is "No, b is not organism centric. It is group
> > centric. If you want to get an organism centric fitness component
> > from b you have to divide by N".
> >
> > If that is what you meant, then we have nothing to discuss, since
> > I continue to maintain that b is organism centric.
>
> JE:-
> You can maintain anything you like. This does not make what you maintain to
> be correct no matter if all the gene centric Neo Darwinists in China agree
> with you. Science requires logically correct explanations that can be tested
> against nature. Nature was and is, the _only_ authority of the sciences.
[snip]
> Both of us cannot be correct so what one of us argues must stand refuted.
> Science requires such a basic argument of HR, like justice, to be _seen_ to
> be resolved and not just consistently evaded.

John, we are not arguing here about whether Hamilton's rule is correct.
We are arguing about what it means - about whether the variable 'b' is
to be interpreted as a fitness benefit to an organism or a fitness benefit
to a group. We don't use logic to resolve this kind of dispute. We
read Hamilton and other neo-Darwinist proponents of the rule and see what
they meant. I have done this. Have you?

John, I don't think that you have ever read a textbook explanation of the
rule with comprehension. Instead, your method of operation seems to be
to imagine some plausible but erroneous chain of logic that might lead to
the rule and then to attack the logical errors that were made in your
imagined derivation.

When I first started reading this group, you were claiming that 'b'
represented the number of recipients that were helped. You have gone
through at least five different meanings for 'b' since then. Wouldn't
it make more sense to accept that it means what the neo-Darwinists say
that it means, and then to argue that with THAT meaning the rule just
can't work (assuming of course that attacking Hamilton's rule is your
only source of entertainment).


.

Relevant Pages

  • OT: The pinnacle of hypocrisy...
    ... admitted that you had mistakenly thought John had written "Macs"... ... Steve has had problems with. ... you've also stated that John's clarification made it "clear" ... "He DOES have a card in his Mac Pro. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: ECB+CTR Mode?
    ... John E. Hadstate wrote: ... | "Tom St Denis" wrote in message ... |>John E. Hadstate wrote: ... |>~>>When I asked for clarification you replied with this junk. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Yo, JimH!
    ... >> John H. ... >I got a custom 5 pound cut of standing prime rib from the butcher at BJ's ... >I made the sour cream and whipping cream based horseradish sauce but neither ... "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Boating Jeopardy
    ... >> John H. ... >> Rene Descartes ... "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Rule 3:9 f Open Letter
    ... saturday morning for a small group of scouts with a YL or sensible ... maybe clarification is needed as to whether the 'two ... there is scope for clarification, then there will be DCs who take the hard ... John Russell ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)