jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in
news:cogfiv$2b93$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> William Morse  wrote 
> 
>> >> To those who may not be familiar with the history, Jim and John
>> >> have stimulated much interesting discussion on the newsgroup, and
>> >> it has been acknowledged that there is still much to learn about
>> >> the implications of Hamilton's rule
>>  
>> > Much to learn?  (IOW, you don't really understand 
>> > Hamilton's rule but your sure it must be right.  
>> > Afterall it's in the text books.)

There is much to learn about relativity and quantum mechanics. Do you 
doubt them on that basis alone?

 
>> You might try reading what I and others have written about Hamilton's
>> rule and tests of it in various populations. They will tell you that
>> we are not sure how much of apparent altruism it actually explains,
>> but we are looking at it in the real world rather than internet
>> newsgroups. 
> 
> Hmm.  So you're saying that I should just take your 
> word for it that it works.  And the reason it doesn't 
> appear to make sense is because of internet newsgroups.  


No. I would not advocate anyone taking my word for it - even though I 
like most humans will be miffed when they don't :-)  What I am saying is 
that in several posts I and others have noted that Hamilton's rule is 
great in theory (a simple mathematical truism and hence incontrovertible) 
but that in practice  the benefits and costs are hard to pin down. There 
are a number of species (gray jays, meerkats, and the cichlid fish 
Neolamprogus among others) that appear to conform to Hamilton's rule, 
because family members  help siblings at the apparent expense of their 
own fitness. But there may be other explanations for the behavior 
(benefits from practicing care on anothers young, for instance) which 
complicate the picture. My suggestion is that we spend more time 
discussing real examples such as these than rehashing our pet theories.

 
> Has it ever occurred to you that it appears to make 
> sense because you haven't really thought it through?
 
Yes that thought has occurred to me.  But then I thought it through 
again, and it still made theoretical sense. 

  
>> >   and to what extent it actually applies in real 
>> >> populations. My point is that both have had ample opportunity to
>> >> convince others of the validity of their arguments
>> > 
>> > You've had ample opportunity to address the issues 
>> > I raised.  
>> 
>> And I and numerous others have addressed those issues. You don't
>> accept our explanations. That doesn't make us wrong any more than it
>> makes you wrong (see below).
>>  
>> >  in a post-publishing-peer-
>> >> reviewed instead of a pre-publishing-peer-reviewed setting.
>> >> Neither has been successful. 
>> > 
>> > I made an offer of 10 thousand dollars to anybody 
>> > that can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's 
>> > nonsense.  Joe started to approach the problem but 
>> > then bowed out when I insisted that he provide 
>> > justification for the assumptions that he tried to 
>> > slip in the back door of his argument.  
>> 
>> Well if you don't establish objective criteria for the demonstration,
>> including giving authority to a third party to determine whether the 
>> criteria have been met,  you can't expect anyone to take you
>> seriously on your offer.  
> 
> I have no problem with esablishing objective criteria.  


Good. Please feel free to do so. And give authority to a third party.

(snip)
 
>> The basic idea is simple and incontrovertible - it is simply
>> mathematics.  But the details of the math in real world populations
>> are so intricate that rb may never be greater than c, and in cases
>> where this appears to be true there may be offsetting benefits to the
>> individual that make c actually a net benefit (i.e. a negative cost).
>> So even though there appear to be a large number of cases (e.g.
>> meerkats) that validate Hamilton's rule, the real world is complex
>> enough that vagueness is not an excuse - it is the only rational
>> response.  
 
> You're basically saying here that since reality is more 
> complex than the model is capable of representing that 
> we should just accept the validity of the model.  Your 
> approach is not scientific, it's religious.


No, I'm basically saying that the model is a model, i.e. a 
simplification. As in any model, the math is true as math - whether it 
accurately models the real world (within the limits of the approximation) 
is the interesting question.

 
  
>> > It always strikes me as strangely ironic how often 
>> > somebody on this NG will reveal that, firstly, they 
>> > believe in the validity of a concept and, secondly, 
>> > they don't fully comprehend it.  
>> 
>> 
>> Do you believe in electromagnetism? Do you fully comprehend it? Do
>> you believe in thermodynamics? Do you fully comprehend it? Do you
>> believe in plate tectonics? Do you fully comprehend it? Do you
>> believe in relativity? Do you fully comprehend it? 
>> 
>> Now perhaps you don't believe in any of these, or perhaps you fully 
>> comprehend all of them. If you seriously maintain that either of the 
>> above is true, I suggest you seek professional help :-)
> 
> Unlike Hamilton's rule the above mentioned notions 
> have formulas that actually work.  They are verifiable.  
> Moreover the logic within them is sensible.  This is 
> not the case with Hamilton's nonsense.


I understand that you have a problem with Hamilton's rule, but you made a 
general statement to the newsgroup about irony vis a vis belief in 
validity of a concept vs. full comprehension of the concept. I answered 
with a list of concepts which are almost universally accepted as valid 
and which are also almost universally not fully comprehended. As I 
understood it your implication was that Hamilton's rule must be fully 
comprehended in order to be valid. My argument, admittedly by analogy, is 
that this is not true.

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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