John Edser wrote:

>>>JE:-
>>>How can you measure c when the sign of c is arbitrary?
>>
> 
>>BOH:-
>>Because c exists outside of Hamilton's rule.  You would still be able to 
>>measure it even if Hamilton's rule did not exist.
> 

> 
> BOH:-
> c is the difference in fitness 
> between individuals carrying out an action 
> and those not carrying out  the action.
> 
> JE:-
> Yes, but this difference can be EITHER negative,
> i.e. an absolute _gain_ to the donor or positive
> i.e. an absolute _cost_ to the donor! AGAIN,
> you cannot measure c if you cannot know its
> sign!{at}# 

Huh?  Surely it's the converse that's true - you cannot know the sign of 
c without measuring it.

> BOH:-
> This can be measured regardless of the existence of a 
> mathematical rule about the evolution of the action.
> 
> JE:-
> In other words the number you come up with for
> c can be EITHER an absolute gain or an absolute
> loss to the donor and like the Enron accountants
> you don't give a hoot which?
> 
No.  I find out afterwards whether it's a gain or a loss.  I can only do 
that by measuring the difference in fitness.  I can't see how it's 
possible to decide if c is positive or negative without measuring it.

> 
> 
>>>BOH:-
>>>I repeat: the only thing that is "misleading" 
>>>here is your proven lack of integrity. You have 
>>>proven yourself totally unwilling to examine just
>>>one simple inference from what you agreed because 
>>>it does not suit you to do so. Is this the sort of 
>>>biased nonsense you pass off as science to your 
>>>hapless students?
>>>John, please avoid these gratuitous personal insults.
>>
> 
>>JE:-
>>Nothing in what I wrote was "gratuitous" or
>>"insulting". 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> I'm sorry, but I find it extremely insulting to be accused of a lack of 
> integrity, and of passing on "biased nonsense". 
> 
> JE:-
> I am NOT asking anybody to take my word for it
> but _you_ are.  What I accuse you of can be
> tested by any reader of this thread.  

Only if they come to a future lecture course in the science given by me. 
  I don't have any planned, so they will have to wait until next year at 
the earliest.


> ___________________________________________
> Do you agree that the use of Hamilton's
> rule to support OFA after group selection 
> failed to do so, was a misuse of that rule?
> 
> *please answer this question with a yes or no*

I have answered this several times, and see no point in repeating myself.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
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 3/11/04 8:17:03 PM