joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) wrote in message
news:...
> In article ,
> Jim McGinn  wrote:
> >As I explain previously, the logic of Hamilton's kin selection 
> >pivots off of nothing but an erroneous application of english 
> >(specifically it involves misusage of the word share which 
> >involves two different meanings of the word being used 
> >interchangeably).  When this misusage is corrected Hamilton's 
> >kin selection falls like a house of cards.  This is true 
> >regardless of whether the person investigating it is or is not 
> >a "sober-minded evolution professional."
> 
> 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.)

  No one else seems to agree that he has.  Before we
> rehash all this again, interested persons should reread some of these
> previous threads.  In particular, I call attention to the thread
> "Re: Part2 (Kin Selection)" which you can find by using that phrase
> in Google Groups search, or by using
>   McGinn Felsenstein "kin selection"
> in Google Groups.

Cool.  I'll check it out.

> 
> 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?  

  McGinn immediately (27 October 2002) objected to
> the assumptions, saying that this approach "lacks causal validity" and
> "involves the wholescale inclusion of whole sets of unexamined
assumptions".
> He would not put forward any simple model of his own that could be shown to
> come to any different conclusion than Hamilton's rule.  He objected to all
> simple models as oversimplified.
> 
> He describes the situation in dramatic terms ("falls like a house of
> cards", "the confusion that ensues when such care is not taken", 
> "your continued belief in the validity of a Hamilton's equation even though
> you are unable to demonstrate it's validity", and
"Hamilton's equations has
> never amounted to anything but a rather vague analogy",
"Hamilton's fantasy",
> and "the establishment accepted Hamilton's Rule and has since continued
> pretending that it makes sense").
> 
> Given our inability to get a model-based argument out of McGinn, I asked in
> frustration (11 November 2002):
> 
> "Perhaps we should see whether he has convinced anyone at all.
> 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.  

I suggest
> that his argument convinced no one else.  If so, this puts McGinn's
> dramatic descriptions into perspective.
> 
> I hope that before a lengthy repetition of this argument, that people
> reread some of this old debate, judge for themselves whether they agree with
> McGinn.  If they do, I hope that they will explain here why they do.

And if they don't I hope they will keep it brief and to the point.

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 6/11/04 6:01:42 AM