"Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote in
message news:...
> Guy Hoelzer wrote:
> 
> > philrob{at}ix.netcom.com wrote on 9/24/03 8:25 AM:
> > 
> >>>
> >>Folks like Williams, Dawkins, Smith, Hamilton, Price, etc.
have no problem
> >>with multilevel selection theory.  Its just that, according to
most of the
> >>formal models, its influence should be sufficiently weak to be almost
> >>negligible on most occasions:
> > 
> > 
> > I think that Dawkins stands apart from the rest of those you mentioned in
> > his insistence that selection at the level of the gene has the primary
> > control of biological evolution. I would also argue that your last sentence
> > is a non-sequitur.  If you adopt the multilevel selection point of view,
> > then there is no other source of selection, period.  Selection at the level
> > of the gene, for example, is part of multilevel selection theory, not an
> > alternative.  
> 
> Sorry.  I allowed my own personal prejudice to enter the picture here.
> Although I think there is some serious work being done on multilevel
> selection theory, with the development of interesting formal
> representations and what not, more often than not I find that those
> using the term 'multilevel selection' are actually just plain old
> group selectionist who have found it possible to resurrect this
> old dog under a new banner.  None of the models I am familiar with
> demonstrate that group selection can be employed to tackle the
> really tough cases of biological altruism such as the "altruism"
> of the 9/11 terrorists.

Unfortuntely this is the simplemindedness that lies at the heart of
the issue.  Note the logic here.  He claims to be unaware of a model
that substatiates the existence of group selection therefore it does
not exist.

  Selection at levels higher than the
> organism are almost always sufficiently weak to be almost
> negligible except in very special and limited circumstances.

Pure pseudoscience.  The fact that groups exists proves that selection
for groups must be strong.  You seem to think that your inability to
model/conceptualize it serves as evidence against group selection.  It
doesn't.  It only serves as evidence of your inability to
conceptualize complex phenomena.

> Do you have specific examples of group selection in mind that you
> feel have truly changed the land scape on this matter?

The existence of groups.

> 
> > Perhaps you meant that these folks generally argue that
> > selection at the level of the gene is and has been particularly
important in
> > the grand scheme of things.  This may be somewhat accurate, but I don't
> > think that any of them other than Dawkins would be comfortable arguing that
> > selection at the level of the gene is and has been more influential than
> > selection at the level of the individual.
> > 
> 
> Dawkins was just employing metaphor ("selfish genes") to render the
> Hamilton and Smith formalisms easier to understand.  But there is
> little doubt that he had a solid understanding of their implications.
> Disagreeing with Dawkins is tantamount to disagreeing with Hamilton,
> or at least that is the impression I have always gotten:

So the fact that nobody can make sense of it except by way of literary
devices is something we should just pretend not to notice.  Let's see
Dawkins drop the metaphors and deal with the issue in a scientific
manner.

> 
> 
>     Even without intention to be snobbish, reading a popular book in a
>     field close to one's research interests almost forces one to tally errors;
>     this example misapplied, that point left ambiguous, that idea wrong,
>     abandoned years ago.  This book [The Selfish Gene] had an almost
>     clean sheet from me......its biology as a whole is firmly the right way
>     up and its questionable statements are at least undogmatic (W. D.
>     Hamilton).
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that this statement was made a good ten years or so
> after Hamilton published his own papers on the role of higher
> levels of selection based on his conversations with Price (e.g.,
> 'Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in Evolutionary Model' (Nature,
> Vol. 228), 'Innate Social Aptitudes of Man... ' in 'Biosocial
> Anthropology', etc.
> 
> I also have an acquaintance (Mike Waller)who actually engaged
> Hamilton on this point as late as 95 or so....
> 
>     In the summer of 1995 I and a colleague had the opportunity
>     briefly to questioned the late Bill Hamilton on this issue.
>     He said something like "It's not that group selection isn't
>     possible, it is simply that we have always thought its
>     effects are much too weak to resist selfish behaviours
>     reflecting the narrow interests of the individual". This
>     is very much the line he takes in his published works. Are
>     we now to presume that he, unlike Herbert, is to be seen as
>     not having been amongst the cognoscenti?
> 
> 
> > 
> >>   This book (Wilson and Sober's 'Unto Others') should carry a
> >>   health warning.  Read critically, it will stimulate thought
> >>   about important questions.  Swallowed whole its effects would
> >>   be disasterous (Maynard Smith).
> > 
> > 
> > This is a lovely British use of metaphor.  It is usefully applied to
> > anything one might read scientifically.
> > 
> 
> In the light of the remainder of Smith's review I think you would
> have a pretty tough roe to hoe in trying to convince ANYONE that
> Smith had a favorable opinion of Wilson and Sober's attempt to
> resurrect group selection.

Who cares.  Smith was never anything but an ideologue.  The thing that
is most prominent about Smith's thinking--especially on this issue--is
his vagueness.  For example, Smith admitted that he could never fully
make sense of Hamilton's famous paper.  Did you know that?  (Or did
you just pretend not to notice?)

  Most of the reviewers I am familiar
> with (Maienschein, Hurst, Nunney, Buss and Duntley, etc.)
> seemed to come to the same conclusion as Smith, that W and S
> was mostly smoke and mirrors.  Is there anything in particular
> about their argument that you found convincing?

As I stated above, "Smith admitted that he could never fully make
sense of Hamilton's famous paper."  Now let's talk about smoke and
mirrors.

> 
> > 
> >>Given this fact, there is a danger that folks will want to invoke higher
> >>levels of selection to countenance observable features in nature that
> >>often appear to have been group selected, but which the models simply
> >>can not currently accomodate (e.g., 9/11 terrorists, rescue
workers, etc.).
> > 
> > 
> > I am not sure what "fact" you are pointing to here.  
> 
> That selection above the level of the organism is sufficiently weak
> to be of little effect unless their are special and limiting
> circumstances that rarely occur in nature.

Explain how this is, supposedly, a "fact."  

> 
> > As far as your warning
> > about invocations, I again see this as a universally useful warning about
> > invocations of all kinds.  Invocation is not part of the
scientific process,
> > IMHO.  We try to go a little further by articulating our intuitive
> > explanations in the form of hypotheses, which explicitly call for
> > exploration rather than shutting down alternative viewpoints.  I, for one,
> > have no problem with hypothesizing that forms have evolved under the
> > influence of group selection.
> > 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Its just that I suspect you think you have a green light to
> resurrect all the old baloney that Williams put to rest once and
> for all.  Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions here.  Do you have
> specific examples in mind?

Do you?

Jim
---
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 9/29/03 6:09:42 AM