joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu wrote 

> McGinn seems to be basing himself on arguing that all the
> results people have obtained from models are invalid, as he
> disagrees with the assumptions of the models.  We ask him for
> a model which gives a different result than Hamilton's, and he
> says:
> 
> [McGinn:]
> >You're saying one needs a model to demonstrate that 
> >Hamilton's model is nonsense?  I disagree.  I think 
> >one need only demonstrate that Hamilton's model is 
> >inconsistent with objective reality.  
> >
>  [me:]
> >> And the model McGinn puts forward, that yields a different
> >> result is ... [what??]
> >
>  [McGinn:]
> >Objective reality.
> 
> The entire structure of evolutionary genetics has developed by
> using oversimplified models,

I agree with your characterization.  I would say that these models
(many if not all) are oversimplified to the point of being worthless
and misleading.

> finding results that are implied by
> them, and then trying to make the models more realistic and
> vodiate or extend the results in those more realistic models.
> If a result is true in general, it will be true in a simpler subcase
> which can be analyzed.

If you don't qualify your assumptions how would you know that, "it
will be true in a simpler subcase?"

> 	
> McGinn refuses to show us any special case model that gives a
> result different from Hamilton's.

Well, I'm not sure what you are saying here (and I'm getting the
distinct impression that you aren't sure either) but I have spoken
considerably (if not always directly) on my theory of the evolutionary
origins of altruism/cooperation in biological phenomena.  And it
doesn't involve any "special case model."  (And if it did involve a
special case model I would take considerable care to qualify my
assumptions.)

> He just wants to sit around
> declaring the assumptions invalid.  

Actually, I didn't declare your assumptions invalid.  I just said that
it was not, IMHO, appropriate to include assumptions in a model
without making reasonable effort to show that these assumptions were
both necessary and reasonable.

> He is alone there

So was Galileo.

> -- no
> evolutionary geneticist is going to pay attention to that kind of
> approach.

You got me there.

> 
> But at times there are hints that McGinn may some day actually
> investigate the behavior of a model.  From slightly earlier postings:
> 
> >> [McGinn]
> >> >> > I myself, in my 
> >> >> > own models, am very careful not to include 
> >> >> > assumptions other than those that are verifiably 
> >> >> > part of nature/reality.  The reason I'm so careful 
> >> >> > about this is because I've found that the most 
> >> >> > common mistake that many theorists make in their 
> >> >> > evolutionary models is to include assumptions that 
> >> >> > are not well grounded in evidence.  Hamilton rule 
> >> >> > is a perfect example of the confusion that ensues 
> >> >> > when such care is not taken.
> 
> and
> 
> >>  [McGinn:]
> >> >You got a good point here--in other words, if I 
> >> >stick to my guns "no biologist," is going to fully 
> >> >engage themselves and come to comprehend what it 
> >> >is I'm saying.  So I really have nothing to lose 
> >> >by, in the least, giving my tacit agreement to some 
> >> >set of assumptions. You're starting to sway me to 
> >> >be more open to the idea of accepting your 
> >> >assumptions.  But there is little or no chance that 
> >> >I would accept your 12 neoDarwinistic assumptions 
> >> >unexamined.  So I guess we are at an impasse.
> 
> So there's hope he may some day actually explain his
> objection by making a simple model.
> 
> If McGinn wants to try a set of assumptions, 

I accept all the standard assumptions of physics.

I'd be happy to
> discuss where they lead, and whether Hamilton's rules appear
> as a result.  If he just wants to reject all assumptions,
> then he won't convince anyone, and there is no point continuing.

I think I'm rightfully prudent about adopting assumptions without good
cause.

> 
> Perhaps we should see whether he has convinced anyone at all.

Let me ask you some questions.  Which of the following do you consider
a more reliable means of assessing the scientific validity of a
concept: 1) Whether it convinces other; 2) Whether it stands the test
of scientific methods/procedures.

Which of these two do you think Galileo would have considered more
reliable?

> Is there anyone else out there who thinks McGinn has shown that Hamilton's
> result is invalid?  If so, do they have some model situation that
> could help us understand the logic of that objection?

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 11/12/02 11:53:41 AM