"John Edser"  wrote in message 
news:ck6cet$362$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
>
> "Lennart Kiil"  wrote:
>
>> >> LK:-
>> >> This is certainly true, reductionism is a viable scientific
>> >> method. I think
>> >> and hope that what Mayr meant was that we cannot understand
>> >> nature and gain
>> >> complete knowledge of its workings by just examinig it from
>> >> the smallest
>> >> level we can detect. In other words it is one-leveled exclusive
>> >> epistemological reductionism that is dead (if such a caricature
>> >> ever existed
>> >> in the first place).
>
>> > JE:-
>> > Could you please expand on what you
>> > mean within evolutionary theory by:
>> > ".. one-leveled exclusive
>> > epistemological reductionism that is dead"
>
>> LK:-
>> In general: If epistemological reductionism is taken to mean that all
>> phenomena can be most completely understood in terms of the
>> behavior of the
>> smallest detectable entities and that we can gain our knowledge
>> the fastest
>> by pursuing the inquiry only at this microphysical level, then I must
>> conclude that epistemological reductionism is dead.
>
> JE:-
> It depends on how the levels are joined.
> Reductive reasoning is a deductive chain
> of logic from mostly, _undefined inductive assumptions_.
> If you assume A, then B and C may be valid deductions from A
> (in that order) where C may represent a "microphysical" level
> of A. As an example: the organism A (as a very basic inductive
> biological assumption) allows genes C to become deductive
> microphysical levels of complexity via the phenotypes B that
> genes C can be tested to code for within each organism
> assumption. Mendel did the original experimental
> deductive work of C from A via B. Note that the sum of
> each C genes fitness does _not_ add up to form the fitness
> of one A organism. This means that understanding the
> fitness of one A organism within evolutionary theory
> may require C as a test of the organism assumption A.
> It certainly does not mean that C can replace A
> in any way! However this remains the basis of
> gene centric Neo Darwinism. The fact that not a single documented
> independent gene fitness exists is all the proof that
> is needed to show that A+B = C represents a false
> deduction from A. Yet, the gene centric reasoning of Hamilton
> et al (developed from Fisher et al) assumes that the heritable
> fitness of  each genomic gene can be added up to calculate the
> fitness of one organism because only additive levels allow fitness
> _independence_. Unless fitness independence exists selection at
> Hamilton et al heuristic gene level of selection cannot
> force organism fitness altruism (OFA) at the Darwinian fertile organism
> level of selection as Hamilton et al have insisted that it can for
> over 50 years. Hamilton et al represents a classic case of
> misused reductive thinking within the science of biology.
> Almost all such reductive models have been misused in this way.
> Population genetics has made a speciality out of such misuse.

Well, most of the theory was developed at a time when the causal 
relationships between the levels were less well known than know.

>
>
>> LK:
>> This is a descriptive
>> statement on my part, not a normative or evaluative one. There is
>> no need to
>> flog a dead horse (or any horse for that matter) so I am not
>> going to argue
>> why this probably also serves us better (shortly it has to do
>> with the fact
>> that we can never really get outside the system we are trying to
>> understand).
>
> JE:-
> The only way we can step "outside the system we are trying to
> understand" is to make a better inductive guess about what
> we think it may be and test it refutation via any of its
> deductions.

Yes, but even so there are yet some problems. I will not go into this as I 
believe it to be too far from the purport of this group.

>
>> LK
>> Within evolutionary theory I guess exclusive focus on the genic
>> level could
>> be considered epistemological reductionism.
>
> JE:-
> Yes it does represent "epistemological reductionism".
> The only question of worth is: has this epistemological
> reductionism been misused? Unfortunately the answer is
> a resounding YES for the reasons give above.

Apparently so.

>
>> LK:-
>> Back in university I wrote my thesis on the controversies between
>> Gould and
>> Dawkins. In my view we can get the most complete understanding of living
>> systems by paying attention to both of these men. They both have their
>> fallacies too of course. Gould's hierarchy to easily falls pray to
>> the lazy
>> relativism that is the unfortunate zeitgeist we live with, such as the
>> argument that all levels are equally important/unimportant.
>
> JE:-
> Gould never understood absolute Darwinian
> fitness. The reason why "Goulds hierarchy to easily falls pray to
> the lazy relativism" that "is the unfortunate zeitgeist we
live with"
> is that Gould never understood the inductive importance of
> the total number of fertile forms reproduced into one population
> by each parent. Unless you can define absolute Darwinian fitness you
> have nothing to make evolutionary theory deductions, from. Fitness
> has nothing to do  with survival per se, this is just a sub value of
> fitness. Herbert Spencer led everybody up the garden path with his
> jingle "survival of the fittest" which still dominates in 2004
> (even Hamilton refers to it one of his early papers).

Very true, and very unfortunate.

>
> Absolute Darwinian fitness is: the total number of fertile
> forms reproduced into one population by each parent. It is
> not the number of fertile/infertile forms that you just happen to
> count at one point in time as identified genomic genes
> and it is not the total number of infertile forms you have
> reproduced. You have to raise infertile forms to fertile adulthood before
> they count as Darwinian fitness units simply because genes
> within infertile forms remain locked in. One parent can have as many
> separate total Darwinian fitness measures as separate totals
> of fertile forms reproduced into separate populations.
>
> The "unfortunate zeitgeist we live with" is Post Modernism
> which assumes that everything is relative. Post Modernism fits
> population genetics like a glove. As Dr Hoelzer
> and Dr O'Hara agreed, population genetics cannot
> see totals it can only see proportions (all proportions
> are just relative measures). Dr O'Hara has labelled the
> term "frequency" as the ongoing misuse of population genetics
> because it only represents a proportion and not a total.
> Given these facts of logic it is simple to
> understand why "Goulds hierarchy to easily falls
> pray to the lazy relativism". Unless you can correctly identify
> a biological maximand you have no other choice. NAS agrees
> that Neo Darwinians do not have a maximand. However, absolute
> Darwinian fitness represents such a maximand. I have been posting
> it to sbe for over 4 years. I have also posted an experiment
> to test it to refutation. The same experiment can test
> the Neo Darwinist assumption that random processes such as
> mutation and random sampling error (termed genetic drift)
> can _alone_ cause "evolution". This Neo Darwinian assumption
> is not testable to refutation (it is only testable to non
> verification) so it only represents a rusty "iron man" misuse of
> a random process to allow a useless irrefutable theory of evolution.

Well, yes, but how would you go about measuring absolute fitness? This is 
not an easy task. In fact it would require us to stand at the end of time 
and be able to look all the way back to the start.

>
>
>> LK
>> Dawkins on the
>> other hand, I think, has tended to ascribe to much to the genes, in more
>> than one way.
>
> JE:-
> Dawkins and Wilson's Sociobiology argument relies entirely on
> Hamilton's rule which has been misused in an ongoing way to
> support OFA within nature after group selection failed to
> be able to do so over 50 years ago. The rule cannot discriminate
> between the cost c as an investment and the same cost c as a
> donation by the actor because it only measures the _difference_ between
> rb and c, i.e. it is a clear cut case of "lazy relativism"
> being used to entirely misrepresent evolutionary theory. Unless what
> Hamilton terms OFA is actually its opposite: organism fitness
> mutualism (OFM), both altruistic and wildtype genes move to extinction.
> Even though one can win relative to the other _both_ sustain
> an absolute (total) fitness loss leading to extinction unless OFM
> and not OFA is operating.
>
>
> Of course, no independent gene level
> of fitness has ever existed. Not a single independent
> genomic gene fitness has ever been documented within nature.
> Dawkins and the University of Oxford have misrepresented
> evolutionary theory to the general public via chronic reductive
> misuse and must take responsibility for such misuse.

And further rely to much on correlation where causality should be requiered. 
No wonder Popper never accepted this strain as science proper. That does not 
mean of course, that they might not be right on some issues.

>
>
>> LK;-
>> In conclusion, it is good to inquire from a number of levels because this
>> will speed up the process of scientific progress.
>
> JE:-
> I think you are in serious error. What is required
> is a single, testable, fitness maximand (a maximand for evolutionary
> theory that can be tested to refutation). Deleting the Popperian
> refutation process as Dr Hoelzer argues, or attempting to substitute
> rusting "iron man" propositions for refutable propositions as
> Dr Moran argues, is only a recipe for disaster. The result
> of this misuse is that totally irrefutable "creation science"
> can now be required to be taught in some USA schools within
> science departments.

I am not sure I quite understand you point here?!

>
>> LK:-
>> I think exclusive
>> epistemological reductionism is effectivly dead within
>> evolutionary theory
>> because now it seems to be evident to most researchers that it is not the
>> most fruitful outlook.
>
> JE:-
> Scientific method has not changed.
> You make an assumption of nature which must
> be testable to refutation using an appropriate
> experimental methodology. Multi levels
> of selection are tested (if they can be
> tested!) _lastly_ and not firstly if
> contesting single levels of selection
> exist to be tested  to refutation (which is the case).
> Total Darwinian fitness as a single refutable maximand
> for the science of biology remains NON refuted.
> Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony
> have existed almost as long as scientific method
> has existed in order to make testing more efficient.
> However, it appears these basic principles
> are simply ignored by prejudiced Neo Darwinists.
> When questioned they retreat into Post Modern
> "lazy relativism" while continuing to collect their
> paycheques.

Well, this tendency will be dificult to subvert from here. What else are you 
doing to alert to public of this issue?

>
>
>> LK:-
>> I apologize for my terrible prose, I had to much to drink yesterday (this
>> morning actually)
>> best regards,
>> Lennart Kiil
>> www.zensci.com
>
> JE:-
> Did you meet Dr O'Hara in the bar drinking
> his "lazy relativism" troubles away ;-)

I am not sure, I do not really remember!

Regards,
Lennart Kiil
---
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 10/11/04 12:10:43 PM