Re: Publishing scientific information
> > > JMcG:-
> > > AFAIC, it's not necessary to refute something the 
> > > validity of which as never been demonstrated. 

> > JE:-
> > We differ as to why the rule is bad
> > science. I do not claim to have refuted 
> > Hamilton's  Rule, I claim that it 
> > remains invalid _because_ it is
> > irrefutable and therefore not a valid
> > theory of science.

> JMcG:- 
> If it's irrefutable then it is, by definition, valid.

JE:-
It is logically valid but it is not
a valid theory of science because it is
not _rationally_ valid. Your error (which
is the same as the gene centric error)
constitutes a failure to distinguish between 
logic and reason. All rational things
are logical but not all logical things
are rational. Science has to be rational
and not just logical. For any proposition
to be rational it has to be refutable.

> JE:-
>  The rule is logical
> but not rational. 

> JMcG:-
> Pure Edserian nonsense.

JE:-
I am flattered...

It is pure Popperian "nonsense" 
I am afraid so I cannot take 
the credit. Your retort must mean 
that you entirely reject the 
Popperian proposition that
any valid theory of science
must be refutable. Is this
the case?

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 11/21/04 9:44:31 PM