name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
wrote

> I'm just saying that, rather than fire snide insinuations at me, you
> should come out and say what you think, so that i might have a chance
> at addressing it.

I have said what I think.  And you can't dispute what I said except to
pretend to misinterpret it.

> 
> > 
> > > And i am still waiting for you to justify your dismissal of a large
> > > body of empirical support for inclusive fitness theory as 'anecdotal'
> > > evidence.  
> > 
> > You haven't demonstrated it's empirical validity.
> 
> See, for example, Nee et al (2002) Proc Roy Soc Lond B 269: 755-760.

Paraphrase it for us.

> 
> > 
> > I mentioned previously, as an example, that sex allocation
> > > applications of inclusive fitness theory give particularly good
> > > support.  The data fits so well with the theory that, rather than
> > > predict z (sex ratio, easy to measure) given r (relatedness, difficult
> > > to measure), people now use z to estimate r.  
> > 
> > You can't even define r so how am I to believe any of this.
> 
> Because, in the cases in which this is employed, r is simply the
> reciprocal of the number of separate lineages engaged in local mate
> competition.

Obviously, now show us how it works in the context of Hamilton's
equation.

>  
> > This is very important
> > > in, for example, epidemiology, where we want to know about the
> > > population structure and processes of disease parasites.  And guess
> > > what?  The values of r obtained through this reverse application of
> > > sex-allocation / inclusive-fitness theory give extremely good matches
> > > to the values of r previously determined the hard way (empirical
> > > studies of rates of inbreeding, etc).
> > 
> > 
> > If it gives the good matches that you claim then you should have no
> > trouble demonstrating it.  Well, what are you waiting for?
> > 
> 
> See the ref above.

Why not explicate it here in SBE?

> 
> > > 
> > > So not only is Hamilton's rule a mathematical truism, it is has
> > > applications in human health (disease control, vaccination strategies,
> > > etc), and without doubt elsewhere.
> > 
> > You declare it a truism yet you are unable to demonstrate it's
> > validity and you are not even able to even define the term used within
> > the formula.  The only thing you are demonstrating is the degree to
> > which you wish to believe it's true.
> 
> In this instance, it is easy to define r.

If it's so easy then what do you need me for?  You should have no
trouble demostrating the validity of Hamilton's equation.  What are
you waiting for?

  But, to be truthful, i am
> aware of the general definition of r.  I merely suspect that you are
> not, and that this is the basis of your disagreement with Hamilton's
> rule.  Tell me *precisely* why you think Hamilton's rule fails
> (including what you think r represents), and i will tell you why you
> are wrong.  It would be a waste of my time to attempt to bring you up
> to date on the concept of relatedness, as the literature is extensive
> and well known and goes back to Hamilton's 1964 paper itself.  That
> you are clearly ignorant of what r actually is (or else, why keep on
> about IBD?), and have previously confessed to having no knowledge
> about many related concepts and mathematics which are crucial to
> understanding inclusive fitness, shows that you are not interested in
> taking the advances of the last 40 odd years on board.
> 
> No, what i am interested in is you putting your wonderful insight out
> in full show, devoid of rhetoric, and let me either
> 
> a) show you how you are wrong

Go ahead.  Make my day.

> 
> b) concede that you may be on to something
> 
> Both outcomes would be intellectually satisfying.  I enjoy undergoing
> paradigm shifts, so i am genuinely hoping for (b).  But as this thread
> has continued, my confidence in you has rapidly diminished.

You've demonstrated that you are unable to demonstrate the causal
validity of Hamilton's equation.  You've also demonstrated that
despite the fact you cannot demonstrate it's causal validity that you
still believe in it's causal valdity.  This puts you in the dubious
position of believing in something the valdity of which you cannot
demonstrate.

I point out that much of the logic that underlies Hamilton's equation
is absurd.  I present you with thought experiments which explicate
this absurdity.  You are unable to dispute the conclusions of my
thought experiments and instead insist that I'm under some kind of
obligation to make sense of Hamilton's assumptions in order to dispute
his conclusions.  This is especially ironic in consideration of the
fact that all along my argument has been that Hamilton's assumptions
(and by default his conclusions) don't make any sense.

The challenge you present to me is identical to the challenge a
believer in God might present to an athiest: prove that God does not
exist.  It can't be done.  Likewise I can't demonstrate the
nonsensicality of your belief in the validity Hamilton's fantasy (if
for no other reason but that it's nonsensicality makes it untestable).
 Like an atheist pointing out that one cannot prove the existence of
God, all I can do is point out that you are unable to demonstrate the
causal validity of Hamilton's fantasy.  I have no control over what
you chose to believe.

Jim

You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through
reason.
---
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 10/26/02 12:02:54 PM