Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 13:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
"Peter F" 19eimc_minus19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
PF:-
My answer:
What you are most substantially referring to is an only very
crudely proven to exist part of how we function and evolved.
JE:-is
The Darwinian fertile organism concept of Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF)
not at all crude but many of the misused simplified/oversimplified gene
centric models derived from it are.
I did not have TDF in mind. I referred to epistasis and more lately
epigenomics (epigenetics). (Could have taken more care to specify.)
JE:-
Ok.
IOW, there is relatively difficult (or impossible) for
people to have detailed absorbing/preoccupying discussions
about epigenomics (or epigenetics) and epistasis.
JE:-theories
Science is all about providing different and therefore contesting
which can be empirically separated from each other only because they are
fully testable against _nature_. This means each idea provides three
classes
of test:
1) Verification.
2) Non verification.
3) Refutation.
I suppose you meant 2. in the sense of a model so flawed that
it is "not even wrong" - i.e. not amenable to
neither experimental nor observational corroboration. (?)
JE:-
Yes. All oversimplified models suffer from this because they have no
constant algebraic term e.g. Hamilton's Rule where TDF was and remains
artificially deleted and replaced by just nothing at all. You cannot provide
a relative rule and then not specify what it is supposed to be relative to.
What Hamilton's Rule is empirically relative to is TDF. When this becomes
included within the rule it becomes:
Rb>K-c
Where K = TDF
Using this corrected rule where what the Hamilton's Rule is relative to is
now specified within that rule, organism fitness altruism cannot evolve.
Popper took great pains to point out that irrefutable propositions can
explain away just about anything you like at no risk to a preferred idea.
When these non refutable beliefs are adopted by the sciences they have to be
enforced BECAUSE they cannot be tested to refutation. This is done within
the public sector by creating mandarins who allocate the money or decide
what will be published. It is here that a group bias can destroy more
innovative ideas provided by lower ranked individuals who are perceived as a
threat, or allow popular irrefutable theories to replace older refutable
theories e.g. Hamilton's Rule. Gross levels of these mutually detrimental
effects are only found within totalitarian states. Within Democratic states
it varies with the level of competition that is allowed to exist.
Do you imply that the degree of 1. and 3. can, in case of some
hyotheses and theories, philosophies/worldviews,
be sufficient enough to be conclusive to all but unsuitably
AEVASIVE minds: e.g. inEPTly AEVASIVE minds and
so called "crack-pots" (who BTW are EPTly defined as persons
strongly addicted to a relatively complex idea that is typically more or
less
subtly contradicting or neglecting of some aspect/s of reality, and that
has sprouted within their own AEVASIVE minds).
JE:-
I state, without any exceptions, that any valid scientific theory must be
able to be tested by _all three_. As an example the ever popular null
hypothesis can only be verified or non verified. This is because a
refutation requires a verification of a positive event entirely excluded by
the theory under test, e.g. an object with a velocity larger then c or
within the biological sciences a parent with a lower TDF being selected over
a parent with a higher TDF within the same population. Please note that this
does not mean that the null hypothesis remains invalid. It means that it
cannot replace a test to refutation. Tests to just verification/non
verification can help or hinder depending on if they are used or misused.
The rule is: a simplified/oversimplified model cannot contest or replace the
theory it was simplified oversimplified from.
Dr Moran's assumption that any genetic change produced by random sampling
error constitutes evolution and not temporal variation represents a misuse
of an assumed random process. Interestingly, this is because a random
process can only be non verified. It cannot be verified. Any observed non
random pattern could have been produced by EITHER a random or non random
process. Therefore nobody can assume that the observation of a random
pattern verifies either because it verifies both. Note also that if a random
process is observed to provide a non random pattern it was proven never to
have been a random process in the first place, e.g. the observation of
meiotic drive genes proved that the assumption that meiosis was a random
process was incorrect. The incorrect labeling of a process is not the same
as a refutation of that process.
The fact remains that refutation is alone, definitive. But just to able to
supply it you must also be able to supply a verification and a non
verification. IOW if you can supply a refutation then you must also be able
to supply a verification and a non verification. This means that just to be
able to claim that you understand the theory you are putting forward, you
must be able to supply what would constitute a verification of it, a non
verification of it and a refutation of it. Irrefutable theories remain
_critically_ incomplete so when applied they always remain ambiguous. An
incomplete idea cannot be accurately transferred to another mind. What
happens when you attempt to do so is that everybody makes up their own
version of any missing bits so that everybody ends up with a different
theory. The net results is that political pressure groups form in an attempt
bully others to adopt a particular version that is politically correct.
<snip>
Moreover, people normally prefer to preoccupy themselves with
what they have become proficient at; and what is sometimes
both their money-making profession, a support for
social-status, and an activity that provide pleasure and/or
frees them from emotional unease (anxiety).
JE:-this
Over specialization and rewarding only this has allowed the sciences to
become fractional and uncoordinated providing the double whammy waste of
duplication and stifled innovation. One fairly recent example was the
human
genome battle between public and private sector science. I attribute
tomonopolistic
the recalcitrant attitude of Watson acting as a mandarin for the
unnecessarily costly publicly funded human genome project.
Deleting the basic requirement for refutation within a mostly
public sector science establishment will allow irrefutable politicallywild
correct ideas to stifle the sciences while at the same time allowing
politically correct speculation to dominate refutable theory.
I would never dismiss the possibility that a 'herd mentality' might
be at play too.
(I just never bother with trying to list every to me conceivable component
of the relevant aspects of human Evolutionary Psychobiology Type
issues.;)
JE:-
Might be? This effect has been measured. Without double blind crossover the
testing bias for a favored idea becomes automatic even when using the most
experienced researchers. It can be as high as 1/3, which interestingly, is
about the same as the placebo effect.
socialIf one so adds the easily provable (just by pointing ;-))
prevalence of "primal pain" [=trauma-specific
neural imprints, or CURSES - with their/its natural, and naturally
etc.,
causes] it then becomes apparent that addiction (basically motivated by
half-formed perception of an endogenous potential to overwhelming
dread and self-defeating distress) may ALSO "be at play".
That is, "at play" to keep the lid on exactly 'the part' of what is in
Pandora's box that
you are proposing should be let out in the open.
JE:-
Peter,
I do not claim to understand your terminology. However I agree that
irrefutable theories can only serve prejudice and incompetence. My point is
that irrefutable models cannot complete and replace the theory they were
simplified/oversimplified from without producing disastrous results for the
sciences.
JE:-ideas
Just as good money moves out when the bad money moves in, individual
move out when group selected ideas move in.
I don't deny that you are fighting for a worthy cause.
I only wish the cause you picked for yourself were even more
EPT-aligned than what it is. :->
JE:-
Maybe it would be if I could understand what an "EPT-aligned" position is.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: What's smallest known "self-sufficient" genome
- Next by Date: Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Previous by thread: Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Next by thread: Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
