Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> "John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> 

>>
>>JE:-
>>I will try to make this
>>perfectly clear. I am only addressing
>>the most basic formulation of Hamilton's
>>rule since I consider a basic flaw in
>>logic exists within it. I am happy to
>>address additions after but not before,
>>this basic flaw is addressed.
> 
> 
> This is intellectually dishonest.  If the model you are discussing is
> not intended to be general, then it is not surprising that it can be
> pulled apart by altering the assumptions.  This is the strawman
> approach.  If Hamilton's rule is genuinely flawed, then you have to
> demonstrate this with the generalised rule.
> 
> For instance, say Hamilton presented a model using the assumption of
> haploidy, then you show that it doesn't work for diploidy.  What would
> we gain from that?  Certainly not the paradigm shift that you suggest.
> 

I think the biggest flaw in John's thinking is his notion of a TESTABLE
hypothesis.

First of all:

Darwin's theory was never accepted based on its testability
a la Popper but rather on its capacity to maximize explanatory coherence
a la Pierce, Lycan, Thagard, Harman, etc., e.g., it capacity to
"explain" the divergent flora and fauna on geographically isolated
islands which a creationist account could only explain ad hoc (e.g.,
God just wanted it that way).

Second:

Hamilton was a response to the individual selectionist's inability to
account for observable organismic altruism, e.g., birds that jeoparize
their own safety to warn the flock.  As such, Hamilton has been accepted
precisely because it can pass a test that individual selection theory
has failed.

Third:

When confronted with truly outlandish biological altruism, such as the
"altruism" of the 9/11 terrorists, and thus with a complete failure of
BOTH individual selection theory and kin selection theory, John sees
nothing but adaptive behavior, at least based on previous comments
regarding such examples (e.g., lots of organisms do outlandish things to
attract a mate).  As such, I would argue that John's commitment to
individual selection is deeply emotional, which is why he wouldn't recognize
a true test of his favorite hypothesis if it walked up and punched him
in the nose.

Sorry John, but I think its time to call a spade a spade.


PR
---
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 10/23/03 6:15:06 AM