Text 887, 141 rader
Skriven 2004-11-28 06:18:00 av Jim McGinn (1:278/230)
Ärende: Holowness of SBE
========================


William Morse <wdmorse@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<cnefmv$r9b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> name_and_address_supplied@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote
> in news:cnaq3s$2l83$1@darwin.ediacara.org: 
> 
> > jimmcginn@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
> > news:<cn99ek$26ml$1@darwin.ediacara.org>... 
> >> name_and_address_supplied@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
> >> wrote 
> 
> 
> > Indeed, there is alot of confusion surrounding Hamilton's arguments,
> > even among evolutionary biologists.

The confusion is due to the fact that it makes no sense.

 This is because the arguments are
> > of great interest to many people, and these people have generally not
> > read Hamilton, yet spin off their interpretation of his arguments.
> > Naturally, there is going to be inconsistency.

What does this tell you?

 However, the social
> > evolution theorists who actually deal directly with this theory are
> > agreed as to what Hamilton's rule is, what it says, and that it is
> > correct.

500 years ago most scientists agreed that the earth 
was at the center of the universe.

> > 
> >> > I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> >> > against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
>  
> >> It's not the peer review process that is the problem its 
> >> the fact that the peers have turned this from a scientific 
> >> problem in which Hamilton's argument would have to be 
> >> shown to be right into a political argument where it is 
> >> only necessary for a hypothesis to create enough confusion 
> >> that it can't be shown to be wrong.
>  
> > Ah, but the very point of the primary, peer-reviewed, scientific
> > literature is that you don't have to worry about any of this confusion
> > - you can go straight to Hamilton's publications and see exactly what
> > he says. You can take that, and reason with it, regardless of what
> > flawed interpretations of Hamilton's rule are flying around on the
> > internet or whatever.

Good ol' blame it on the internet excuse.  

>  
> >> > Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting a paper, and these are
> >> > made available to the author. A while back I suggested that you
> >> > prepare a manuscript and submit to Journal of Theoretical Biology,
> >> > which seems most appropriate for such a work, and is where Hamilton
> >> > published his classic 1964 papers. Did you pursue this at all? I'd
> >> > be interested to hear about the results.
>  
> >> Well, if anybody were to do this it wouldn't be John it 
> >> would be myself (for obvious reasons).  And my argument 
> >> would not be that I could demonstrate that Hamilton is 
> >> wrong (not that I haven't already done this) but that 
> >> it's proponents cannot demonstrate it to be right.
>  
> > Sorry, I forgot which of the trashers of Hamilton's Rule I made this
> > suggestion to previously. It applies to both you and John. And it
> > still applies, despite what you have just written. If you have
> > something to say, say it in a manuscript, and submit it for peer
> > review.
> 
> Actually sbe does provide peer review - it just provides it after 
> publishing instead of before publishing. Both Jim McGinn and John Edser 
> have had ample opportunity to convince  others on this newsgroup that 
> Hamilton was incorrect,

Yourself and others have had ample opportunity to 
convince me that Hamilton is correct.  

 and the consensus result of the peer review is 
> that they are both wrong and Hamilton is right. 

Science is not a democracy.  It's a method of 
arriving at truth that is supposed to cut through 
the natural tendency of humans to believe.

> 
> To those who may not be familiar with the history, Jim and John have 
> stimulated much interesting discussion on the newsgroup, and it has been 
> acknowledged that there is still much to learn about the implications of 
> Hamilton's rule

Much to learn?  (IOW, you don't really understand 
Hamilton's rule but your sure it must be right.  
Afterall it's in the text books.)

  and to what extent it actually applies in real 
> populations. My point is that both have had ample opportunity to convince 
> others of the validity of their arguments

You've had ample opportunity to address the issues 
I raised.  

 in a post-publishing-peer-
> reviewed instead of a pre-publishing-peer-reviewed setting. Neither has 
> been successful. 

I made an offer of 10 thousand dollars to anybody 
that can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's 
nonsense.  Joe started to approach the problem but 
then bowed out when I insisted that he provide 
justification for the assumptions that he tried to 
slip in the back door of his argument.  

That doesn't mean that Jim and John are wrong - that is 
> for the reader to decide - but it does mean that they have had plenty of 
> opportunity for making their views known.  So blaming the continued 
> acceptance of Hamilton's rule on some fault in the peer-review process is 
> clearly a red herring. Hamilton's rule is accepted because the majority 
> of scientists who have taken a hard look at it think it has some 
> validity.

Some validity?  What does this supposedly mean?  
Either it is valid or it is invalid.  Sounds like 
nothing more than an excuse for vagueness.  

It always strikes me as strangely ironic how often 
somebody on this NG will reveal that, firstly, they 
believe in the validity of a concept and, secondly, 
they don't fully comprehend it.  

Jim
---
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 11/28/04 6:18:07 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)