Guy Hoelzer  wrote:-

> >> JE:-
> >> Here is my challenge: Provide any rule
> >> you like, I don't care what it specifically
> >> refers to. If the rule is used as a stand
> >> alone measuring device as Hamilton's is,
> >> then without at least one constant term
> >> the rule may be logical but NOT
> >> RATIONAL.

> > JM:-
> > John, you will have to explain what you mean in saying that
> > Hamilton's rule is used as a "stand alone measuring device".
> > As I use the term "measurement", I don't see the rule as
> > measuring anything.  I don't think that anyone, except perhaps
> > Dr. Hoelzer, has ever suggested that it measures anything.  I
> > realize that you use the term "measurement" in a different sense
> > than other people.  Since that is the case, the onus is on you
> > to explain how you are using the term and how Hamilton's rule is
> > used (misused?) by neo-Darwinists to make "measurements".
> > Dr. Hoelzer, If you are reading this, you might wish to clarify
> > what you meant in suggesting, if you did, that the rule has a role
> > in the practice of "measurement".

> GH:-
> Yes; I'm listening.
> I don't think that I ever suggested that Hamilton's Rule can be used to
> measure anything.  If JE, or anyone else, can produce a statement
> by myself that implies such a thing, I would be happy to explain my
> intended meaning.
> I do recall saying that the Rule defines a threshold point on one side of
> which Hamilton's theory predicts that selection will favor the
> spread of an
> altruism allele, and on the other side of which selection will tend to
> decrease its frequency.

JE:-
Hamilton’s measured “threshold point” remains entirely
_arbitrary_ unless the total fitness of the actor
is included within the rule, no exceptions.

I cannot be any clearer re: my criticism of
this supposed, rule. As I have previously stated, no
valid stand alone rule (a rule that does not implicitly
refer back to any other measure relative or absolute)
can exist that remains 100% relative (which is the case
for Hamilton’s Rule because the total fitness of the actor
remains deleted from the rule). All anybody here has to
do to refute my claim is produce any stand alone rule that
they argue is rational that does not have a constant term
within it. Logic is enough for mathematics but remains
insufficient for the sciences because the sciences have
to describe testable, i.e. RATIONAL theories of nature
but mathematics does NOT. All rational propositions
are logical but not all logical propositions are rational.

Science can only be concerned with rational propositions.
It is not sufficient for gene centric Neo Darwinists to
claim Hamilton’s Rule is just, logical. Unless it can be proven
to be rational any comparison of Hamilton’s heuristic fitness
rb with the refutable non heuristic fitness c by simple subtraction
remains RATIONALLY INVALID.

I cannot understand:

 	(1) Why such a basic remains an issue.

	(2) How any established academic system
	could make such a basic error for over 50 years.

	(3) Why no effort is being made to correct the error.


I can only conclude that cultural group selective forces
based on political correctness within a centralised
system have dominated evolutionary theory for over 50 years,
to the detriment of this science.

My Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
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 12/12/04 6:22:57 AM