jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
news:...
> name_and_address_supplied{at}hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote 
> 
> > > It's nonsense.  Anybody that tells you differently doesn't 
> > > know what they are talking about.  
> > 
> > Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement.
> 
> It's mathematical nonsense.  As I've demonstrated.  
> 

I must have missed that demonstration. 

>  It is pointless to
> > argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
> > your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
> > 
> > > > > > I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> > > > > > against Hamilton could be hindered by the
peer review process.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's not the peer review process that is the problem its 
> > > > > the fact that the peers have turned this from a scientific 
> > > > > problem in which Hamilton's argument would have to be 
> > > > > shown to be right into a political argument where it is 
> > > > > only necessary for a hypothesis to create enough confusion 
> > > > > that it can't be shown to be wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, but the very point of the primary, peer-reviewed, scientific
> > > > literature is that you don't have to worry about any of
this confusion
> > > > - you can go straight to Hamilton's publications and
see exactly what
> > > > he says.
> > > 
> > > I have.  It's nonsense.  
> >  
> > I'm struggling to understand in what sense a mathematical fact can be
> > described as nonsense.
> 
> If you believe that then you should can start by 
> addressing the issues that I brought up previously 
> that have yet to be properly addressed.
 
Sorry, all I can recall is a mass of assertions to the effect that
Hamilton's rule is nonsense. Was there more to it than that?

> > 
> > >  You can take that, and reason with it, regardless of what
> > > > flawed interpretations of Hamilton's rule are flying
around on the
> > > > internet or whatever.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting
a paper, and these are
> > > > > > made available to the author. A while back I
suggested that you
> > > > > > prepare a manuscript and submit to Journal of
Theoretical Biology,
> > > > > > which seems most appropriate for such a work,
and is where Hamilton
> > > > > > published his classic 1964 papers. Did you
pursue this at all? I'd be
> > > > > > interested to hear about the results.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, if anybody were to do this it wouldn't be John it 
> > > > > would be myself (for obvious reasons).  And my argument 
> > > > > would not be that I could demonstrate that Hamilton is 
> > > > > wrong (not that I haven't already done this) but that 
> > > > > it's proponents cannot demonstrate it to be right.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I forgot which of the trashers of Hamilton's
Rule I made this
> > > > suggestion to previously. It applies to both you and John. And it
> > > > still applies, despite what you have just written. If you have
> > > > something to say, say it in a manuscript, and submit it for peer
> > > > review.
> > > 
> > > I've already said what I have to say.
> > 
> > Science isn't just about understanding, it is about communicating. To
> > unweave your argument from the tortuous archives of sbe is, quite
> > frankly, not worth my time.
> 
> That's your choice.
 
Right - and the onus is on you to get your ideas out there if you
think they are so damn insightful. Rather than bickering in threads,
why not write it all down clearly in a manuscript, and submit this to
a journal, or even post it on a webpage?

>  If you are really interested in science,
> > you will submit an appropriate manuscript outlining your ideas to a
> > peer reviewed journal. Once you have a paper in print, I'll know that
> > it's worth looking at.
> 
> IMO, it's not necessary to refute something the validity 
> of which has never been demonstrated.  

Possibly, but that's academic given that Hamilton has provided the
demonstration / derivation.

> If you think you 
> can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's rule then, by 
> all means, go for it.  And it makes no difference to me 
> what medium you employ.

I would only be restating, or paraphrasing, Hamilton's derivation. 

> > 
> > > Hamilton's rule is invalidated.  
> > 
> > Sorry, but I don't recall any justification given for that assertion.
> 
> Jim

Ah, good come back.
---
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