Text 341, 255 rader
Skriven 2004-10-08 13:28:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Interview with Mayr
===============================




"Lennart Kiil" <kiilx@xtele2adsl.dk> wrote:

> >> LK:-
> >> This is certainly true, reductionism is a viable scientific
> >> method. I think
> >> and hope that what Mayr meant was that we cannot understand
> >> nature and gain
> >> complete knowledge of its workings by just examinig it from
> >> the smallest
> >> level we can detect. In other words it is one-leveled exclusive
> >> epistemological reductionism that is dead (if such a caricature
> >> ever existed
> >> in the first place).

> > JE:-
> > Could you please expand on what you
> > mean within evolutionary theory by:
> > ".. one-leveled exclusive
> > epistemological reductionism that is dead"

> LK:-
> In general: If epistemological reductionism is taken to mean that all
> phenomena can be most completely understood in terms of the
> behavior of the
> smallest detectable entities and that we can gain our knowledge
> the fastest
> by pursuing the inquiry only at this microphysical level, then I must
> conclude that epistemological reductionism is dead.

JE:-
It depends on how the levels are joined.
Reductive reasoning is a deductive chain
of logic from mostly, _undefined inductive assumptions_.
If you assume A, then B and C may be valid deductions from A
(in that order) where C may represent a "microphysical" level
of A. As an example: the organism A (as a very basic inductive
biological assumption) allows genes C to become deductive
microphysical levels of complexity via the phenotypes B that
genes C can be tested to code for within each organism
assumption. Mendel did the original experimental
deductive work of C from A via B. Note that the sum of
each C genes fitness does _not_ add up to form the fitness
of one A organism. This means that understanding the
fitness of one A organism within evolutionary theory
may require C as a test of the organism assumption A.
It certainly does not mean that C can replace A
in any way! However this remains the basis of
gene centric Neo Darwinism. The fact that not a single documented
independent gene fitness exists is all the proof that
is needed to show that A+B = C represents a false
deduction from A. Yet, the gene centric reasoning of Hamilton
et al (developed from Fisher et al) assumes that the heritable
fitness of  each genomic gene can be added up to calculate the
fitness of one organism because only additive levels allow fitness
_independence_. Unless fitness independence exists selection at
Hamilton et al heuristic gene level of selection cannot
force organism fitness altruism (OFA) at the Darwinian fertile organism
level of selection as Hamilton et al have insisted that it can for
over 50 years. Hamilton et al represents a classic case of
misused reductive thinking within the science of biology.
Almost all such reductive models have been misused in this way.
Population genetics has made a speciality out of such misuse.


> LK:
> This is a descriptive
> statement on my part, not a normative or evaluative one. There is
> no need to
> flog a dead horse (or any horse for that matter) so I am not
> going to argue
> why this probably also serves us better (shortly it has to do
> with the fact
> that we can never really get outside the system we are trying to
> understand).

JE:-
The only way we can step "outside the system we are trying to
understand" is to make a better inductive guess about what
we think it may be and test it refutation via any of its
deductions.

> LK
> Within evolutionary theory I guess exclusive focus on the genic
> level could
> be considered epistemological reductionism.

JE:-
Yes it does represent "epistemological reductionism".
The only question of worth is: has this epistemological
reductionism been misused? Unfortunately the answer is
a resounding YES for the reasons give above.

> LK:-
> Back in university I wrote my thesis on the controversies between
> Gould and
> Dawkins. In my view we can get the most complete understanding of living
> systems by paying attention to both of these men. They both have their
> fallacies too of course. Gould's hierarchy to easily falls pray to
> the lazy
> relativism that is the unfortunate zeitgeist we live with, such as the
> argument that all levels are equally important/unimportant.

JE:-
Gould never understood absolute Darwinian
fitness. The reason why "Goulds hierarchy to easily falls pray to
the lazy relativism" that "is the unfortunate zeitgeist we live with"
is that Gould never understood the inductive importance of
the total number of fertile forms reproduced into one population
by each parent. Unless you can define absolute Darwinian fitness you
have nothing to make evolutionary theory deductions, from. Fitness
has nothing to do  with survival per se, this is just a sub value of
fitness. Herbert Spencer led everybody up the garden path with his
jingle "survival of the fittest" which still dominates in 2004
(even Hamilton refers to it one of his early papers).

Absolute Darwinian fitness is: the total number of fertile
forms reproduced into one population by each parent. It is
not the number of fertile/infertile forms that you just happen to
count at one point in time as identified genomic genes
and it is not the total number of infertile forms you have
reproduced. You have to raise infertile forms to fertile adulthood before
they count as Darwinian fitness units simply because genes
within infertile forms remain locked in. One parent can have as many
separate total Darwinian fitness measures as separate totals
of fertile forms reproduced into separate populations.

The "unfortunate zeitgeist we live with" is Post Modernism
which assumes that everything is relative. Post Modernism fits
population genetics like a glove. As Dr Hoelzer
and Dr O'Hara agreed, population genetics cannot
see totals it can only see proportions (all proportions
are just relative measures). Dr O'Hara has labelled the
term "frequency" as the ongoing misuse of population genetics
because it only represents a proportion and not a total.
Given these facts of logic it is simple to
understand why "Goulds hierarchy to easily falls
pray to the lazy relativism". Unless you can correctly identify
a biological maximand you have no other choice. NAS agrees
that Neo Darwinians do not have a maximand. However, absolute
Darwinian fitness represents such a maximand. I have been posting
it to sbe for over 4 years. I have also posted an experiment
to test it to refutation. The same experiment can test
the Neo Darwinist assumption that random processes such as
mutation and random sampling error (termed genetic drift)
can _alone_ cause "evolution". This Neo Darwinian assumption
is not testable to refutation (it is only testable to non
verification) so it only represents a rusty "iron man" misuse of
a random process to allow a useless irrefutable theory of evolution.


> LK
> Dawkins on the
> other hand, I think, has tended to ascribe to much to the genes, in more
> than one way.

JE:-
Dawkins and Wilson's Sociobiology argument relies entirely on
Hamilton's rule which has been misused in an ongoing way to
support OFA within nature after group selection failed to
be able to do so over 50 years ago. The rule cannot discriminate
between the cost c as an investment and the same cost c as a
donation by the actor because it only measures the _difference_ between
rb and c, i.e. it is a clear cut case of "lazy relativism"
being used to entirely misrepresent evolutionary theory. Unless what
Hamilton terms OFA is actually its opposite: organism fitness
mutualism (OFM), both altruistic and wildtype genes move to extinction.
Even though one can win relative to the other _both_ sustain
an absolute (total) fitness loss leading to extinction unless OFM
and not OFA is operating.


Of course, no independent gene level
of fitness has ever existed. Not a single independent
genomic gene fitness has ever been documented within nature.
Dawkins and the University of Oxford have misrepresented
evolutionary theory to the general public via chronic reductive
misuse and must take responsibility for such misuse.


> LK;-
> In conclusion, it is good to inquire from a number of levels because this
> will speed up the process of scientific progress.

JE:-
I think you are in serious error. What is required
is a single, testable, fitness maximand (a maximand for evolutionary
theory that can be tested to refutation). Deleting the Popperian
refutation process as Dr Hoelzer argues, or attempting to substitute
rusting "iron man" propositions for refutable propositions as
Dr Moran argues, is only a recipe for disaster. The result
of this misuse is that totally irrefutable "creation science"
can now be required to be taught in some USA schools within
science departments.

> LK:-
> I think exclusive
> epistemological reductionism is effectivly dead within
> evolutionary theory
> because now it seems to be evident to most researchers that it is not the
> most fruitful outlook.

JE:-
Scientific method has not changed.
You make an assumption of nature which must
be testable to refutation using an appropriate
experimental methodology. Multi levels
of selection are tested (if they can be
tested!) _lastly_ and not firstly if
contesting single levels of selection
exist to be tested  to refutation (which is the case).
Total Darwinian fitness as a single refutable maximand
for the science of biology remains NON refuted.
Occam's Razor and the principle of parsimony
have existed almost as long as scientific method
has existed in order to make testing more efficient.
However, it appears these basic principles
are simply ignored by prejudiced Neo Darwinists.
When questioned they retreat into Post Modern
"lazy relativism" while continuing to collect their
paycheques.


> LK:-
> I apologize for my terrible prose, I had to much to drink yesterday (this
> morning actually)
> best regards,
> Lennart Kiil
> www.zensci.com

JE:-
Did you meet Dr O'Hara in the bar drinking
his "lazy relativism" troubles away ;-)

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/8/04 1:28:48 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)