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

> [in response to my insistence that he needs a model to disprove
>  Hamilton's kin selection result]
> [me:]
> >> No biologist is going to pay attention to
> >> McGinn's assertions that it is wrong unless he can agree to
some list of
> >> assumptions that allow some mathematics that yields a different result.
> >
>  [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.
> 
> I would summarize this by saying that there are numbers of
> models made that verify Hamilton's result (I gave two references
> and there are others). 

It's unfortunate that nobody seems to be able to 
make any sense of these "models."

 McGinn has presented no set of
> assumptions, no model, no mathematics in his argument that
> Hamilton is wrong.  I'd be happy to see a model, which of
> course means he would have to make assumptions, one which
> gave a quite different result.  So far there is none.

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.  


> 
> [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 the model McGinn puts forward, that yields a different
> result is ... [what??]

Objective reality.

> 
> [McGinn]
> >Specifically the problem involves the wholescale inclusion 
> >of whole sets of unexamined assumptions.
> 
> OK, so when a model is contructed which has "retail" inclusion
> of "examined" assumptions, it is ... [what??]

There's no 'c' in wholesale.

> 
> [me]
> >> What results does it give?  Where are
> >> McGinn's equations?  All of his past discussion is verbal. 
He has no model,
> >> no mathematics, no result.
> >
>  [McGinn]
> >Just me, my paradigm, 
> 
> Does McGinn care to present any model to help the rest of us 
> understand why this "paradigm" thingie has anything going for it?

I think objective reality has something going 
for it.  

> 
> I gave references to two papers that gave Hamilton's result or ones
> very close to it.  McGinn asked:
> 
> >You are asking us to take your word for it?
> 
> No, McGinn can actually read the papers if he wants to check.
> It's called the scientific literature.  You read it.

I have.  And for the reasons I've mentioned I think 
Hamilton's Rule is nonsense.

> 
> All of which boils down to everyone else sitting and waiting for
> McGinn to reveal some models and some mathematics that leads
> to a different result from Hamilton.  He could start by listing
> some assumptions he would make in a toy case of his own.  I would
> be happy to help work out what is the math that these assumptions
> imply.

The phrase, "a different result from Hamilton," suggests to me that,
possibly, you misunderstand the role (epistemological role) that
Hamilton's Rule fulfills in the context of evolutionary biology.  It's
sole purpose is to, supposedly, explain the origins of altruistic
behaviors.  So you can't improve on it by getting a different result. 
You improve on it by verifying that it and it's underlying assumptions
are accurate.

> 
> For now, we're waiting ...
> 
> [BTW above I have rearranged the order of McGinn's comments in his posting to
>  present things more clearly, but don't think this misrepresents his argument.]

How, as a scientists, do you justify your continued belief in the
validity of a Hamilton's equation even though you are unable to
demonstrate it's validity?

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 11/9/02 7:29:50 PM