Re: Wynne-Edwards ( was Homosexuality)



Guy Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote:-

REPLY PART A

> > JE:-
> > The relevance is: hypothetical data is not empirical data it is just
> > heuristic data.

> All data are "just heuristic." Anything that aids the approach of
> understanding to Truth is heuristic.

JE:-
Why is the empirical data of what the stock market actually did on Friday
just "heuristic" when it can be empirically verified OR refuted as these
events? Is what I just made up to be the stock market results for Friday as
valid as the documented empirical results?

> >> .. but I argue that data from
> >> in silico experiments are real data.

> > JE:-
> > snip<
> > I agree that hypothetical data is very useful and can be processed just
> like
> > real data. I also agree that we can learn general principles by doing
> this.
> > I do not, and can never agree that such data is "real" for the reasons I
> > previously mentioned which I suggest are obvious. If science blurs the
> > separation between heuristic data and data generated by empirical
> events,
> > then science can replace reality with whatever it feels like it.

> IMHO, data from computational models is not different in kind from data
> collected in other ways.

JE:-
Then no difference exists in the validity of the stock market data for
Friday that I just made up and the empirically documented data for the same
day, i.e. both are equally valid as far as science is concerned in your
view. Is my understanding of your view correct?


> >> They are not hypothetical. Those outcomes actually happened in the
> computer.

> > JE:
> > But these outcomes were only generated from fictional data. Non
> empirical
> > IN, non empirical OUT.

> No. Data is not generated from data. It is generated from process, and
> it
> is all empirical IMHO.

JE:-
Data must always precede any processes because data is just a set of
observations that we seek to explain. Data is processed by an explanation
which then generates more data which must be able to generate the data
required to refute it. In this instance a new proposition replaces the old
repeating this evolutionary process indefinitely providing an _expanding_
data set.

> >> snip for brevity only<

> > JE:-
> > I will take your answer to mean that you do argue that tautologies
> provide
> > valid principles within the sciences. Please provide an example of a
> valid
> > tautological principle within the sciences.

JE:-
Please provide an answer.

> >>> JE:-
> >>> ....to clear this up would you clearly indicate what exactly is
> and is
> >>> NOT empirically based within the example.

> >> To me, empiricism is any data-based method. I include data generated
> >> through simulation as a basis for empirical analysis.

JE:-
Then what you have been arguing is: no distinction exists between empirical
and heuristic data. Is this correct?


> > JE:-
> > But I can run a computer simulation just using fictional data that I
> just
> > made up that allows time to run backwards simply by feeding the
> simulation
> > heuristic negative values of time. The result is no different to running
> a
> > film backwards (something I still very much enjoy doing). While the
> film
> > running forwards is empirically valid re what it depicts, the film
> running
> > backwards is just a heuristic exercise based on data I have only made
> up.

> Nothing, including computers, can run backwards in time.

JE:-
I have never claimed that they could! I claimed: if I feed my computer just
heuristic negative values of t it will simulate time running backwards just
like running a film backwards. However, because you refuse to make any
distinction between just made up heuristic data and empirically based data
you cannot validly claim that time had not actually run backwards (which you
have claimed). IOW you have contradicted yourself.

>snip<

> >> Conclusions drawn
> >> from mathematical models or philosophizing are not empirical in my
> view.

> > JE:-
> > Here we agree. If the "conclusions drawn from mathematical models" "are
> not
> > empirical" then why is possible to conclude from Hamilton's model that
> > altruism can evolve within _nature_?

> Because conclusions can be drawn from theoretical exercises as well as
> from
> empirical exercises.

JE:-
Yes but not necessarily the same conclusions. That is the point. Can I
conclude that time actually ran backwards only because I fed a computer
heuristic negative values for t?

> >> snip for brevity<

> > JE:-
> > Is your point that the exact point death cannot be empirically measured?

> My point was merely that it need not be empirically measured, but now that
> you mention it I would agree that the moment of death cannot be precisely
> measured.

JE:-
So what do you conclude from this?

>snip<

> >> What I meant was that I have often pointed out " that the so called
> >> "conventional" use of many terms remains ambiguous.

> > JE:-
> > Ok.

> >> I think that "additive by additive" epistasis can be either additive or
> >> non-additive.

> > JE:-
> > But if it is one it cannot be other! I mean, if the world can be both a
> flat
> > pancake AND a sphere then nobody can be wrong can they? Can you not see
> the
> > absurdity of such an irrefutable proposition?

> Poppy***. Is it absurd that water can be both a liquid and a gas?

JE:-
Please refrain from invective.

"YES" as just the one same (simultaneous) event but "NO" as any INDEPENDENT
event.

> I
> never
> said that a particular instance could be both additive and non-additive,
> just that some instances can be additive and others non-additive.

JE:-
If you do not provide the criteria of these instances you are just writing
yourself a blank check to verify whatever you prefer. What are these
criteria?

> >> [snip]

> >>> JE:-
> >>> Please provide a non ambiguous definition of "altruism" for use within
> HR.

> >> ...Altruism refers to an
> action by
> >> an individual that enhances the individual fitness of the recipient of
> the
> >> action, while diminishing the individual fitness of the actor.

> > JE:-
> > Yes, but without knowing the TOTAL fitness of the actor it is simply not
> > possible to measure if this is indeed the case. I mean, if I go into a
> shop
> > and buy some lemons and sugar for $10 I am in debit for $10 so I am
> > immediately worse off. Under the proposed definition I am an "altruist"
> > while the shopkeeper is just being "selfish" if he made a profit on the
> > sale. However, If I sell these as lemonade for $15 I am better of in
> total
> > by $5. Suddenly I am not an altruist proving the accepted definition
> only
> > provides an ambiguous meaning for the term.

> You asked me for the definition. Many people find it acceptable. If you
> don't like the concept of altruism, then I think that you should avoid it
> in
> your productive arguments.

JE:-
No, because HR only exists to distinguish between altruism, selfishness and
mutualism evolving in NATURE. I have argued for over 3 years that this is
not possible unless the total fitness of the actor (K) is included in the
rule:

rb>K-c

In the illustrative example I employed above, only if the gains - costs (K)
< $10 providing a net loss can altruism be separated from mutualism. If
altruism is being routinely misunderstood because HR remains ambiguous (it
could be mutualism and not altruism viz my example) then the rule has always
been in serious error. In general terms the rule remains ambiguous because
it has no constant term.


> >> This is definition of the term in the literature, although it suffers
> from
> >> the inherent ambiguity in the term "fitness", IMHO. [Please note that
> we are
> >> going over a lot of old ground. I would like to minimize that.]

> > JE:-
> > I agree that fitness is also ambiguous within HR. So what are left with?
> > Just an ambiguous concept of "altruism" and "fitness". How is any
> rational
> > person supposed to make sense of Hamilton's rationale?


> Point of order -- This thread is not about HR. Let's stick to the topic.

JE:-
I can see no point of order. I have repeatedly stated that HR is my only
_detailed_ example of model misuse. It is not possible within the scope of
sbe to provide more than just one detailed example. Therefore, whenever a
general point in discussion requires a detailed example and HR can provide
it I will quote it and have every right to do so. Please indicate if you
concur.


> > JE:-
> > ....I defined what refutation requires: the verification of a
> > contradiction not allowed by the proposition. I also provided an
> > illustration of how this works. Do you agree of disagree with the
> definition
> > of refutation that I provided?

> I do. I just think that most reasonably complex models or hypotheses are
> virtually irrefutable, leaving only implausibly cartoonish ones to
> refutation.

JE:-
I argue the opposite which I assume to be obvious: IF just the most simple
problems require refutation THEN it must be even more important and NOT less
important for more complex problems.

> I also think that refuting hypotheses that are clearly naïve
> from the start is a waste of time.

JE:-
Was the Newtonian hypothesis that time is just a variable "naïve"? How can
anybody just know what is and what is not "naïve" without just enforcing the
status quo against any change? What does it matter if an idea appears
"naïve" if that idea is refutable?

>snip<
> > JE:-
> > ... The razor can be applied to any situation in which rational
> alternatives
> > have to be tested. It is always better to eliminate the less complex
> > firstly, simply because it is more efficient.

> You may have a fine argument, but it has nothing to do with Ocamm's razor.

JE:-
I refer to the results of applying the razor.

> >>> Interestingly, the Razor requires me to test 4 firstly because it is
> the
> >>> easiest to test to refutation. However, conjecture 4 need not even be
> on the
> >>> table because no car has ever been observed to become invisible. The
> >>> decision as to what to include or not include on the able can
> reasonably
> >>> restrict itself as to what we can expect from past experience.
> However, if
> >>> all of these fail then the conjecture of invisibility may become
> included.
> >>> Allowing 4 on the table to start with is of no concern anyway because
> it can
> >>> be immediately and easily refuted by touch.
> >>
> >> I will make one more comment here, then I will stop picking nits with
> your
> >> example. The touch test is not sufficient for #4, because the car
> could
> >> have become invisible before the brake gave way or the police towed it.

> > JE:-
> > Yes but this two pronged hypothesis is much more complex so it is only
> > tested after the more simple hypothesis stand refuted.

JE:-
Please make a comment.

> >> I understand your argument. I just don't think that science can really
> be
> >> as black and white as you suggest.

> > JE:-
> > Well, everything real is a product of applied reasoning. Science is
> indeed a
> > more complex example but it remains essentially the same. I argue that
> > science, just like anything else, can be proven to be empirically based
> on
> > refutable propositions of "black" and "white" wherein "grey" is provided
> as
> > just a deduction for both (not the reverse).

JE:-
Please comment.


> >> My comments above are examples of the
> >> ways such arguments can fall apart..

> > JE:-
> > They did not because you used the razor correctly.

JE:-
Excuse my typo. I meant to write: They did not because you used the razor
incorrectly :-(

> >> .. when you claim such logical infallibility, IMHO.

> > JE:-
> > I am not claiming "logical infallibility"! I am claiming that only one
> > scientific method exists. If you employ it correctly then science must
> > progress. That is all. The example I provided was to prove to you that
> > refutation is just common, basic and essential for everyday reasoning as
> is
> > verification or non verification. Do you still argue that science does
> not
> > require refutation?

JE:-
Please answer.


> > JE:-
> > .....Pushing "bad" genes has alone been
> documented.
> > This is probably because it was much easier to measure. No reason can be
> > provided to suggest why "good" genes cannot be pushed by the same drive
> > mechanism. Pushing BOTH types of gene ("good" and "bad") simply verifies
> the
> > Darwinian mono centric rationale which relegates fitness at the gene
> level
> > to only be _dependent_ on the organism level where this is the more
> simple
> > proposition. This moncentric rationale remains verified by:
> >
> > 1) The fact that no polygenetic gene has ever produced a polygenetic
> fitness
> > so an independent level of selection remains non verified.
> >
> > 2) The fact that pushed "bad" genes conform to a dependent level of
> > selection because in the end they are all dependently subject to
> selection
> > at the (final) organism level which restricts the "bad" genes but can
> > equally but oppositely, _accelerate_ "good" genes.
> >
> > If drive remains rare, pushes genes on just a random basis and the
> > acceleration provided to "good" genes more than pays for the occasional
> loss
> > produced by the "bad" genes then drive verifies just the Darwinian
> > monocentric level. To my knowledge researchers have never looked for
> pushed
> > "good" genes. This can only be because they appear to be driven by their
> > prejudiced viewpoint.

> IMHO your logic is twisted here.

JE:-
I would appreciate a specific answer. This is a complex and important
problem so it is important to get it right. Where is my error?

> >> [snip]
> >> Then you agree that meiotic drive observations have refuted the
> >> individual-level ONLY position? I guess you are now a multilevel
> >> selectionist.

> > JE:-
> > No, because a dependent level and an independent level is only
> monocentric.
> > The dependent level is only heuristic.

> But both levels are dependent and independent.

JE:-
No distinction only means that your argument has become irrefutable.


> There is no single level
> that is the independent one.

JE:-
Yes there is. Not a single polygenetic fitness has ever been documented in
nature.

>snip<

> JE:-
>..A true duo level requires a verification of two INDEPENDENT
> levels
> >>> and not just the verification of one dependent and one independent
> level.

> >> But that was already accomplished with the single meiotic drive
> example.

> > JE:-
> > No. See explanation above (which in deference to you does not mention
> > refutation).

JE:-
The only comment you supplied to that detailed explanation was that I used
"twisted logic". You never stated what these alleged error/errors in my
logic were.

> >
> >>>> Second, there are examples of such elements sweeping through to
> fixation
> >>>> without driving the population of individual organisms extinct. The
> >>>> elements merely reduce the fitnesses of individual organisms along
> the way.
> >>>> In other words, the proliferation of the high-fitness elements causes
> a
> >>>> decline in the frequency of high-fitness individuals.

> >>> JE:-
> >>> Yes, but this only verifies a dependent gene level of selection within
> a duo
> >>> level proposition where the other level must be independent arguing
> for just
> >>> the one independent level.

> >> Dependence is only a matter of degree.

JE:-
Using your argument any fitness can be made to fit your theory. To refute
this claim please provide a fitness that cannot fit a theory wherein
"dependence is only a matter of degree".

> > JE:-
> > No. You are attempting to employ ambiguity as a "get out of jail free
> card".
> > Once you play it your proposition becomes irrefutable (has no
> > contradiction).

> I am trying to be real.

JE:-
No, all real things must have a contradiction. What stands in contradiction
to fitness dependence/independence ?


> That is harder than trying to be simple.

JE:-
To date most real things have been shown to be simple.


> It is
> far
> from a "get out of jail free card."

JE:-
Any irrefutable fitness is an evolutionary theory "get out of jail free
card".


> >> I agree with Jim, who frequently
> >> argues that all levels are connected, hence interdependent, ..



> > JE:-
> > Interdependent levels are not dependent they are independent. Please
> look up
> > these common words.

> Interdependent necessarily implies connectedness. I did not use the word
> incorrectly.

JE:-
But things can be "connected" in two _contradictory_ ways: reversibly or
irreversibly. Interdependent associations only connect independent selectees
in an entirely reversible way. OTOH fitness dependency only connects them
irreversibly so they form just the one independent selectee.

> >> yet they are
> >> functionally independent enough to be effectively autonomous.

> > JE:-
> > Which of course is just, irrefutable..

> Autonomy is testable.

JE:-
Yes, but only if non-autonomy stands in contradiction to it. If non autonomy
is complimentary to it then autonomy remains irrefutable.

> >>> JE:-
> >>> Yes. But what your description actually proves is the utter
> pointlessness of
> >>> increasing fitness at just a dependent level without also increasing
> it the
> >>> independent level.

> >> It may seem pointless, but I think that it always maximizes the rate of
> >> entropy gain in the universe. Some consider this to be the point.

> > JE:-
> > It may be the point as far as the universe is concerned but it most
> > certainly is not the point as far as the selectee is concerned. We are
> > concerned with independent selectees (biology) and not the universe
> > (physics).
> > If science refuses to discriminate between dependent (non additive) and
> > independent (additive) levels of selection as contradictions,
> evolutionary
> > theory becomes irrefutable. Do you agree?


> I think that all modern scientific theories are irrefutable all modern
scientific theories are irrefutable in the black
> and
> white sense

JE:-
I argue you are not correct. All refutations are "black and white" by simple
definition because a refutation is just the verification of a contradiction
excluded by the refuted theory, within NATURE. Just one documented
refutation within the sciences refutes your proposition that "all modern
scientific theories are irrefutable in the black and white sense" no matter
who advocates it. I have illustrated how the refutation of m (mass) and t
(time) as Newtonian constants via the prohibited verification of c as
constant provides a documented refutation event within the sciences "in the
black and white sense" that I advocate. I have also illustrated how Darwin
provided a refutable theory to replace the irrefutable non evolutionary
thinking of his times. Please provide counter examples.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx





.

Loading