Jim McGinn  wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler  wrote in message
news:...
> > Jim McGinn  wrote or quoted:

> > > > Hamilton's rule is accepted because the majority 
> > > > of scientists who have taken a hard look at it think it has some 
> > > > validity.
> > > 
> > > Some validity?  What does this supposedly mean?  
> > > Either it is valid or it is invalid.  Sounds like 
> > > nothing more than an excuse for vagueness.

[...]

> > Green beards and linkage provide more wrinkles on Hamilton's rule.
> > 
> > Similarly, Newtonian physics "has some validity" - even though we
> > now have a more accurate theory.
> 
> Relevance?

You asked what "some validity" was supposed to mean (above).

If a theory is either valid or invalid (as you suggest) then
Newtonian physics would have to be identified as an incorrect
theory - since it was refuted by Einstien and others.

However that is a poor characterisation overall - it suggests
the theory is not much use.  It would probably be better to say
that Newtonian physics has some validity.

Similarly with Hamilton's rule - it doesn't necessarily give the right 
answers if the problem involves the green beard effect or segregation
distorters - but then again, the distinctions between gene-level 
relatedness and organism-level relatedness were not something it ever 
claimed to be modelling in the first place.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/7/04 10:09:02 PM