"Anon."  wrote:-

> >>>>>JE:-
> >>>>>What I am arguing here is that Hamilton's logic
can only work
> >>>>>when the cost c remains _negative_ (in strictly Darwinian 
> >>>>>fitness terms). This means that at all times,
organism fitness 
> >>>>>mutualism (OFM) and not organism fitness altruism (OFA) is
> >>>>>operating in ALL valid cases of Hamilton's rule,
no exceptions. 
> >>>>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>So that I am not misunderstood: all positive cases of c,
> >>>>>within the rule are invalid. This is because
> >>>>>all positive values of c remain  _ambiguous_ re: the 
> >>>>>measuring OFA and OFM, as Dr O'Hara has reluctantly agreed.
> >>>>>It is this point of logical ambiguity that nobody wishes to 
> >>>>>discuss, not even Dr O'Hara who agrees that it does exist.
> >>>>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>>

> >>>>BOH:- 
> >>>>John, please don't put words into my mouth.  

> > JE:-
> > I [did] not do anything of the sort. 

> BOH:-
> I have never claimed that a positive value of c is ambiguous, so if you 
> claim that I have, then you are putting words into my mouth.

JE:-
The statement that "a positive value of c is 
ambiguous" is a simple deduction from 
the reply you provided to the question that 
I asked:
--------------quote----------------------

1) 22/01/2004:

JE:-
What is the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c?
If c was an abolute measure of fitness
then yes, a real difference exists. However
c is only a relative fitness cost and not
an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
difference?

BOH:-

As far as the rule is concerned, none.

----------- end quote --------------------


> >>>>BOH:-
> >>>>There is (in my mind at 
> >>>>least) no ambiguity - a positive c is a positive c so that the 
> >>>>behaviour 
> >>>>under study is altruistic (this follows directly from
the technical 
> >>>>definition of altriusm).  Whether this behviour will invade a 
> >>>>population 
> >>>>is determined by Hamilton's rule.

> >>>JE:-
> >>>If you wish to retract your reply below, 
> >>>then please do so, _explicitly_:

> >>BOH:- 
> >>No, I do not.  Please do not extrapolate from what I write and then 
> >>claim that I agree with the extrapolation you make.

> >>snip<
 
> > JE:-
> > If any "extrapolation" is logically 
> > deductive from what you have said 
> > then: 

> BOH:-
> That's a big if, and I don't think your logic is correct.

JE:-
A "big if"?
Any rational discourse is almost entirely
focused on valid deductions that are possible from 
the inductive inference/inferences provided within 
the discourse. Such inductive inferences mostly take 
the form of definitions. Hamilton's rule defines 
altruism as any positive c and mutualism as any negative
c. From these and other definitions, deductive sense 
about the biological sciences is supposed to be possible
using the rule. However, you have agreed that the rule
cannot distinguish between "a reduced positive c and "a 
negative c" where "a reduced positive c" represents
an absolute loss but "a negative c" represents an
absolute gain, to the actor. Why does the awesome
significance of such an absurdity escape you?
What you have acknowledged means that mathematically,
both "a reduced positive c" and "a negative c"
appear as a -c cost. This proves that Hamilton
et al's definition of altruism as " any -c cost
measured by the rule" cannot distinguish between
mutualism and altruism, i.e. it cannot do the one,
single job the rule was invented to do: support
organism fitness altruism when group selection
failed to be able to do so. Why wasn't it just
obvious to you (and the Neo Darwinian establishment)
that ALL costs do not necessarily constitute an
ASOLUTE loss because only two types of cost exist:

1) Costs that produce an absolute loss.
2) Costs that produce an absolute gain.

These two types of cost represent absolute 
opposites of each other, i.e. they are CONTRADICTORY
to each other. This means where one is said to exist 
the other must not exist because they are SELF EXCLUSIVE. 
Thus, where both or either are said to exist then
only contradictory nonsense was being offered.
This is the case within the rule. For all cases
of +c EITHER type 1 cost or type 2 cost was being
measured via the rule, no exceptions. The rule 
was always ambiguous and could only offer contradictory
nonsense when it purported to measure altruism as 
any case of +c.

Do you agree that since the rule cannot
distinguish between the two basic contradictory
states that it is supposed to be able to measure
then the rule remains hopeless and was  misused
to support OFA when classical group selection
failed to be able to do so?

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 7/23/04 6:09:07 AM