joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) wrote 

> >> Oh here we go again.  There have been many debates 
> >> on this newsgroup about the logic of kin selection, 
> >> between McGinn and many others. McGinn is convinced 
> >> he has refuted the logic of Hamilton's rules for
> >> kin selection.
> >
> > Reality refutes the "logic" of Hamilton's 
> > rules for kin selection. (I'm just the 
> > messenger.)
> 
> Sadly, the message is understood by no one here 
> (other than McGinn), as McGinn refuses to give a 
> simple example

Sadly.

> (a model that behaves differently
> than Hamilton's Rule).

My argument is that reality behaves differently 
than Hamilton's Rule.

> 
> >> In a posting of 26 October 2002 I put forward a list of assumptions
> >> which I hoped to use to demonstrate that in a simple model, Hamilton's
> >> rule could be derived.
> >
> >Derived?  
> 
> Yes, as soon as McGinn accepted the premises as suitable for a simple
> model system, I would go to show that Hamilton's Rule can be derived from
> them.  Derived, under the assumptions.  But McGinn never accepted the
> assumptions of that model, or stated his own model.

I didn't reject your assumptions.  It just seemed 
that my scientific instinct to clarify and 
scrutinize these assumptions had rubbed you the 
wrong way.  Then you became, er . . . unresponsive.

> 
> >> Is there anyone else out there who thinks McGinn has shown
that Hamilton's
> >> result is invalid?  If so, do they have some model situation that
> >> could help us understand the logic of that objection?"
> >> 
> >> Silence.  No one agreed, even tentatively, with McGinn's assertions.  
> >
> > As I recall nobody could dispute my assertions.  
> 
> That's a funny way to describe a lack of response when I made a request for
> anyone who agreed with McGinn to explain his logic!

I think the real irony is how you and I have such 
different interpretations of the silence of our 
audience.

> 
> >And if they don't I hope they will keep it brief and to the point.
> 
> In the interests of this much-cherished brevity: if we could see McGinn's
> model we could see whether it worked.  If we can't, we can't.

Okay, I'll keep it brief:
Hamilton's refuted.  Get used to it.

Jim
---
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 6/12/04 10:40:39 PM