"John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > Please answer the following 3 questions:
> > > (1) How can you measure any difference
> > > between OFA and OFM using Hamilton's rule
> > > when the total fitness of the actor remains
> > > deleted from the rule?
>  
> > NAS:-
> > I know the A and M refer to altruism and mutualism respectively, but
> > you're going to have to remind me exactly what these nonstandard
> > acronyms are before I can give you an answer.
> 
> JE:-
> These are abbreviations
> of very exact evolutionary
> theory terms.
> 
> OFM stands for organism fitness
> mutualism and OFA for organism
> fitness altruism. The use of
> the word "organism" makes it
> perfectly clear at what level of
> selection the supposed fitness
> effect is said to operate. This
> is very important because
> Hamilton's argument is based on
> altruism at the organism level
> being generated by selfishness
> at the gene level where all of
> this has to measured in exactly
> the same fitness units. Please
> indicate if you agree or
> disagree because it is
> important to ongoing
> discussion.

Right, I think we can agree on this. But just to make sure, would you
agree that altruism is defined as an organism displaying a trait that
directly reduces its own direct fitness?
 
> Please answer the original
> question and provide the missing
> logic of how Hamilton's Rule can
> measure any difference between OFM
> and OFA when the total fitness of
> the actor has been deleted from
> the rule.

Difference is provided by the sign of c.
 
> > > JE:-
> > > (2) Do you agree that totals, that represent
> > > constant terms and therefore maximands must
> > > exist for any idea to be reasonable?
> 
> NAS:-
> How can a constant be maximised?
> 
> JE:-
> By remaining a constant. The maximum
> speed of light in a vacuum is an
> example of a maximised constant.
> Many others exist.
 
How can a constant do anything other than stay the same? If constants
are maximands, do you also believe that maximands are constants? If
so, is fitness a constant? Variation in fitness is crucial for
evolution.

> Do you agree or disagree that the
> total fitness of the actor
> (which is the Darwinian maximand)
> must remain within Hamilton's Rule,
> i.e. it cannot be deleted for
> anybodies convenience?
> 

Uh, disagree. It is not deleted for anyone's convenience. It cancels
out of the analysis for mathematical reasons. It is irrelevant.

> > > JE:-
> > > (3) If you have no Maximand at all for Neo Darwinian
> > > fitness (Neo Darwinians cannot even provide a
> > > non refutable fitness maximand) by what right
> > > have Neo Darwinists  deleted the existing
> > > refutable Darwinian maximand from within
> > > Hamilton's rule?
>  
> > NAS:
> > Who said I didn't have a maximand. Here's one: reproductive value.
> 
> JE:-
> The last time we debated this issue
> you  stated that you did not have a
> maximand.

Did I? Maybe you misunderstood. 

> Lets look at the one
> you have now suggested. At a
> glance it is easy to see that
> it is not rational because
> the obvious question: the
> reproduction of exactly WHAT
> has yet to be answered.
> 
> What exactly is being
> reproduced in your
> proposed maximand?
> 

Listen, that path is going to be difficult going if we don't resolve
these other issues first. Can't we leave it until later, and get back
to your proposed maximand. It is, after all, you who is on the soap
box.

> > > >snip<
>  
> > > > I may be wrong, but I suspect that most of the experts
who post to
> > > > this newsgroup are also motivated by 'Education' rather than
> > > > 'Research'.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > If you have ever been a teacher then you
> > > must realise that learning requires an
> > > ongoing teaching experience for both
> > > teacher and student.
> 
> NAS:-
> Not sure what that is meant to mean, sorry.
> 
> JE:-
> My experience as a teacher taught me that
> students can teach teachers about entrenched
> subject matter because they approach ideas
> from a _refreshingly_ naive point of
> view.

And this is absolutely required for the student to do learning? I
agree that a teacher learns alot, for the reason you said, but I
disagree that learning, for the student, requires that the student
teach the teacher something . . . ?

> > > > NAS:-
> > > > I also perceive no barrier to good ideas posed by the
> > > > current peer review system. With both these points in
mind, I don't
> > > > see what a separate amateur peer review system is going
to achieve. If
> > > > the likes of John Edser desparately want to get their
ideas in print,
> > > > then they should, like legitimate researchers, submit
these ideas to
> > > > the existing peer review system; or else they can seek
out a vanity
> > > > publisher.
>  
> > > JE:-
> > > The above does not constitute a rational case
> > > against a proposed _democratic_ and _transparent_
> > > peer review process that I argue does not exist
> > > at the moment but could be pioneered within sbe.
> > > Would NAS please outline A RATIONAL case against
> > > such an experiment.
>  
> > NAS:-
> > Really, it's not up to me to decide what you do. And frankly, I don't
> > care. I was just expressing an opinion.
> 
> JE:-
> You are obviously very hostile to this proposal.
> In order to turn your hostility into something
> useful for sbe readers, please outline your
> rational case against the proposal.

I'm not suggesting it would intrinsically be a waste of time. However,
I am trying to encourage you and others to integrate more directly
with the scientific community (i.e. through publishing in less amateur
peer review forums), unless you feel that your contributions are
substandard and would not survive the close scrutiny that this
entails.
---
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 11/20/04 6:16:57 AM