[moderator's note: I've taken the liberty of editing
Mr. McGinn's verbiage to remove the most blatant irrelevancies;
things like parenthetical "you jackass", "you dumbass", and so
forth. These phrases are not only unnecessary, but actually undermine
any point one may wish to make; only someone with a poor argument
resorts to name-calling. Next time I will not edit the post, but
will instead reject it. Do As I Say. - JAH]

"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> JE:-
> To attempt to keep this discussion
> civil I have snipped all of McGinn's
> invective and marked where I have
> done so. I have also snipped most
> useless rhetoric. 
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > Using McGinn's "epistemology" NS can _never_ constitute 
> > > a testable theory of nature. 
>  
> > JMcG:-
> > John, your thinking comprises numerous overarching analogies 
> > and bad metaphors.  You use language badly and it causes you 
> > to think your thinking is logical when in actuality it is 
> > mostly nonsense.
>  
> > JE;-
> > This dispute is very simple. JMcG's view of 
> > infinite levels of selection where "NS has 
> > no focus" yet, every level can be selected 
> > "simultaneously" is obviously a contemptible
> > self contradictory concept that has no hope of 
> > ever achieving a testable status.
> 
> 
> JMcG:-
> Testability is not a status.  
> 
> JE:-
> Yes it is.
> The testable status of any valid _scientific_ theory 
> is that it IS testable. If it is not testable
> then discussion is all about moving that view towards
> testability. A non testable view cannot contest and win 
> against a testable view within the sciences.

If you want to argue that a *certain* hypothesis is untestable 
then you should present an argument to that effect.  But only 
a truly misguided person would argue that you can, somehow, know 
that a hypothesis is or is not testable without addressing the content 
of the hypothesis.  And to make matters worse--and as is plainly 
obvious in this paragraph above--you interchange the the concept 
of theory/hypothesis with the concept of "view."  Again, John, 
your words reveal a fundamental inability to to think logically.  

> 
> JMcG:-
> Like I stated above, you use 
> language badly and it gives you the illusion that what you 
> are saying makes sense.  You don't even know how to express 
> yourself accurately.  What you really mean is that single 
> unit of selection is more concise.  In other words, if we 
> ASSUME a unit of selection then measurement is easier.  
> 
> JE:-
> You are simply attempting to evade testability 
> by _incorrectly_ suggesting that "testability" only 
> refers to levels of conciseness.

Levels of conciseness?  Where do you get this?

> I doesn't. 
> The reason you are attempting to do so is to 
> try to argue that your hopeless self contradictory 
> view may somehow be allowed as valid under your 
> redefinition. Self contradictions are not
> allowed under ANY rational view and no
> view that proposes an infinite number
> of units of selection can ever be tested to
> refutation because it can never be measured.

I'm not going to pretend to be able to make any sense 
of this sentence.  

> A single unit of selection view is simpler than
> any multi unit of selection view so that given
> BOTH views are testable, the single unit view 
> should be tested firstly.

Uh, why?  What are you talking about?  

> This is the rule of
> parsimony.

Rule of parsimony?  Parsimony has to do with 
the competing hypotheses that have equivalent explanatory 
power in which case the simpler hypothesis is preferable 
over the more complex hypothesis.  It's not applicable to 
"views."  (In fact I don't know what you mean by a "view.")

> If both views stand non refuted and 
> seem to interpret the data equally well then
> the more complex view is discarded using Occam's
> Razor.

It seems you are using "views" and "hypotheses"
interchangeably.  
Once again it becomes obvious that your thinking has everything 
to do with inaccurate english and nothing to do with good science.  

> 
> >snip invective<
> 
> JMcG:-
> Nobody disputes this, you idiot.  The issue,
> you idiot, is whether or not natural selection 
> ACTUALLY operates on one and only one particular level.
> 
> JE:-
> Because this view can be tested to refutation
> no problem exists here!  However, because your
> view cannot be tested to refutation then a 
> big problem exists within your view. 

Read what you wrote here. First you say, " . . . 
this view can be tested to refutation . . ," then in the very 
next sentence you say, ". . . because your view cannot be 
tested to refutation . . ."  Overlooking the obvious 
contradiction here, answer this question: can it be tested or 
can it not?  And if it can then why don't you present the test?  
If it cannot be tested then explain why it cannot be tested?  
Lest there be any doubt, I'm under no illusion that you'll 
actually answer any of these questions.  Likewise, nor am I 
under any illusion that you actually understand the words you 
use.

> The
> first step is to refute Darwin's single
> unit of selection view. 

"Views," are not hypotheses.  Moreover, Darwin never argued for 
a single unit of selection.  Like the majority of evolutionary 
theorists who followed in his footsteps he did tend to, 
mistakenly IMO, assume a single unit of selection.  And if you 
think you have found some empirical basis for why one unit/level 
of selection is valid and the others are not then you should 
present that argument and stop pretending to have discovered the 
rules of reality/science.  (Suggestion: look up the word 
"empirical.")

> Since you refuse
> to acknowledge that the process of Popperian 
> refutation is valid, there is no point continuing
> discussion with you on this most _basic_ issue.

Popper never discussed refutation of "views". He 
discussed refutation of hypotheses.  This refutation of views 
idea is all yours.  

> 
> JMcG:-
> I agree that measuring NS 
> is more concise when we employ one unit of selection.  But 
> conciseness is only important when measuring evolution is 
> the end one wants to achieve.  
> 
> JE:-
> In the sciences "the end one wants to achieve"
> is always the same: to eliminate all contesting
> views that are on the table except one. When
> this is completed "the end" is to replace that
> idea with a better one by refuting it. In
> this way ideas within the sciences evolve 
> via the process of Popperian refutation.
> 
> JMcG:-
> But even then there is no 
> absolute basis for why one might employ one level rather 
> than another toward any particular empirical end.
> 
> JE:-
> Yes there IS an "absolute basis for why one might employ 
> one level rather than another toward any particular empirical 
> end".  If ideas are different then the _finite_ domain of truth

Finite domain of truth?  Where would we, supposedly, find this?  
In the ark of the covenant?  

> they describe cannot be exactly the same. This means all the
> ideas on the table can be compared and the better idea
> identified, if and only if, all the ideas on the table
> can be tested to refutation. 

Why don't you apply this to units of measuring distance and 
tell us which is valid.  Is it inches, meters, miles, 
millimeters?  Which of these would we find in your "finite 
domain of truth"?  

>  
> The single unit view that only single genes are selected
> forcing organism fitness altruism at a contesting single 
> organism level of selection, _requires_ one view to refute
> in favour of the other.

It's useless to use the concepts of "views" interchangeably 
with the concept of hypotheses.  Again, your thinking has 
everything to do with inacurate english and nothing to do with 
good science.

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 2/20/04 6:32:14 AM