Tim Tyler  wrote in message
news:...
> Jim McGinn  wrote or quoted:
> 
> > I made an offer of 10 thousand dollars to anybody 
> > that can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's 
> > nonsense.
> 
> A cash offer for demonstrating nonsense?  It sounds at least
> amusing.  Did you get as far as appointing an arbitrator?
> 
> > > That doesn't mean that Jim and John are wrong - that is 
> > > for the reader to decide - but it does mean that they have
had plenty of 
> > > opportunity for making their views known.  So blaming the continued 
> > > acceptance of Hamilton's rule on some fault in the
peer-review process is 
> > > clearly a red herring. 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.
> 
> It could be a reference to the fact that Hamilton's rule
> assumes that the relatedness of the actors is known to
> the participants - whereas in nature, that condition
> is rarely met exactly - and usually there is some measure
> of uncertainty which causes a mismatich between relatedness
> and percieved relatedness.

Measure of uncertainty?  I can't make any sense of 
this.  You'll have to show us.

> 
> 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?

Jim
---
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 12/6/04 6:36:09 AM