wirtatmar{at}aol.com (Wirt Atmar)wrote:-

> What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that theorization,
> hypothesis
> formation and wild-eyed speculation are what "don't count," not
> the forum per
> se. Being able to provide demonstrable, repeatable evidence that
> your ideas
> could be correct is what matters in science.

JE:-
It is never enough to only provide evidence
that an idea is correct. Ideas have to be
refutable to be testable. Most ideas are only
testable to non verification. Anybody can
verify/non verify how they define a witch (a mole
here or there or the shape of a nose) but can they
provide a definitive observation that proves when
somebody is _not_ a witch? Note that any verification
or non verification of witchcraft is exactly the same
process as the logic of race. Unless both
Nazi racists and the Jewish racists
provide a test for what isn't a Jew then
such racism only constitutes just another witch
hunt. Here anybody Hitler didn't like could be
subjectively redefined as a Jew and then
conveniently exterminated and anybody that
Jews liked could be redefined as an extemporary
example of a Jew. Relative gains obtained by
the misuse of non refutable subjective impressions
only produces absolute losses to all.

Neo Darwinians favour witch hunts. The view
that a random process can cause evolution without
a non random process is just another witch hunt
because random processes cannot be removed from
any natural population making it impossible to
refute the Neo Darwinistic claim that just a random
gene frequency change is evolution. This is why
only non random processes can validly constitute causative
theories of nature. Hamilton's selfish gene as measured
by Hamilton's rule is another simply because the
rule cannot discriminate between the cost c
to the actor as a mutualised (selfish) investment
and just an altruistic give away unless the total
fitness of the actor is explicitly included within
the rule (which is it not). This means any cost c
can be assumed as just altruistic give away when you
want it to be allowing organism fitness mutualism
to be invalidly passed off as organism fitness altruism,
its contesting opposite.

Any view that is only 100% relative cannot be tested
to refutation. Such views infiltrate the sciences like
a cancer destroying anything in their way allowing
bigotry to become science. An example is that fact that
non refutable "creation science" is now being
taught in some USA classrooms. Post Modern
Neo Darwinists that propose non refutable views
of evolution have thrown out the Popperian referee
because the process of refutation refused them
entry. The net result is that any act of bigotry
can now be taught as "science" in classrooms in the
USA.

Unless a proposed view can produce a finite
total that can be measured within nature it will
always remain impossible to refute that view. For
evolutionary theory such a total does exist: the total
number of fertile forms reproduced into one population
by each parent. All of evolutionary theory remains
refutable via just this Darwinian fitness total. Until somebody
comes up with a contesting total only this Darwinian fitness
total runs all of evolutionary, theory like it or not. Such
things are called refutable maximands which constitute
scientific absolute ASSUMPTIONS of nature.

> WA:
> Every dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying scientist has in his
> pockets one or two
> pounds of Missouri dirt, where the state motto is: "Show me." If
> you can't show
> me with real physical evidence that what you're claiming could at least be
> plausibly true, you haven't told me anything. You're just another
> snake-oil
> salesman with wild ideas.
> Now this is not to say that people don't often propose important
> new theories
> to newsgroups. I've personally heard that the earth is hollow,
> that Planet X is
> approaching, and that there were aliens hiding behind Hale-Bopp.
> While many of
> these hypotheses are surprisingly detailed in their formulations,
> they haven't
> proven so far to be especially accurate. But even more
> importantly, what I have
> yet to see is anyone providing any physical evidence in a
> newsgroup that their
> ideas were true.

JE:-
The gene centric Neo Darwinian view is not refutable
because it has not proposed a refutable maximand
but the fertile form centric Darwinian view is
(because it does provide a refutable maximand). I have
outlined a simple experiment (NOT just a model) that
can test the Darwinian maximand to refutation. I am
sure Dr Atmar is aware of my proposed experiment.

Would Dr Atmar please answer the following questions:

1) Do you discriminate between testing to refutation
and just testing to verification/non verification?

2) What criticism do you have of

	(a) A defined Darwinian fitness maximand.
	(b) The testability of such a Darwinian maximand.

3) What Neo Darwinian view do you argue (if any)
can be tested to refutation and not just, non
verification?


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 11/10/04 6:18:22 AM