Dawkins Net Is A Disgrace
John Edser
Dawkins official website bills itself as "an oasis of clear thinking".
However, Dawkins et al continue to misuse Haldane/Hamilton's critically
oversimplified model which remains based on Hamilton's Rule. The misuse
of Hamilton's mathematics alone allows Dawkins' selfish genes to provide
altruistic in fitness fertile organisms. The net result: a misused,
non falsifiable poly-centric model of mono-centric Darwinism, is rapidly
transforming Professor Dawkins into a cult figure. This is the last
thing evolutionary science needs. Belief systems thrive on cult figures
but science withers and dies.
What evolutionary science urgently requires is Neo Darwinian
FALSIFIABILITY. This will never be secured unless Neo Darwinian
theorists separate a non verification from a refutation. For example,
when the conditions of Hamilton's Rule are met rb>c an altruistic
organism fitness is allowed to evolve. If rb<c but the said altruistic
gene appears anyway, this observation cannot falsify Hamilton's rule.
All such an observation can represent is a non verification. This is
because real altruistic and selfish fitnesses cannot even be
distinguished within Hamilton's Rule. This is because only variable
fitnesses are compared within it. All that can be reasonably expected
when comparing one variable to another is if they remain the same or
different. If they are indeed different, you cannot determine which is
the larger or the smaller (up/down, closer/further away etc etc) unless
you compare the same variables to a proposed constant. Quite clearly,
such a constant provides two epistemological tools for evolutionary theory:
1) A critical frame of reference for fitness.
2) A point of falsifiability. This is via empirically proving the
proposed constant was just a variable (note that this can only be proven
by proposing a different, falsifiable constant which remains constant).
The two points above were and remain the basis of Galileo's pioneering
work leading up to Einstein's Special Theory which absolutely required
the empirical falsification of Newtonian Mechanics.
The facts: Dawkins et al have gotten away with transforming Darwin's
falsifiable evolutionary theory into just a non falsifiable Neo
Darwinian model. IOW Dawkins et al remain responsible for degrading a
bona fide theory into a misused, mathematically based belief system.
This has set the stage for today's unsightly war: science (proffered by
Dawkins et al as just a Post Modern belief) Vs religion. Evolutionary
science is not just a belief and non predicated mathematics is not a
science.
Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" continues to inflame the pointless
comparison of non falsifiable religious beliefs to falsifiable
scientific theory. What needs to be urgently addressed are their quite
separate epistemologies. Beliefs and theories may even reside in
different sides of the brain.
The unanswered question for evolutionary theorists is WHY belief systems
evolved in human culture and WHY they continue to override falsifiable
theory within the majority (which includes Dawkins et al). WHY have bona
fide evolutionary theorists allowed Hamilton's mathematics to remain
misused? Was it politically based? I mean, Haldane, Hamilton and Dawkins
reside on the political left which propose a clear desire to
demonstrate the evolution of altruism within nature. OTOH the fascist
right had a clear desire in demonstrating the evolution of selfishness
within nature. Historically the right misused Spencer's empty tautology
"the survival of the fittest" in order to quite incorrectly demonstrate
fitness selfishness. Subsequently and similarly, the left misuses
Hamilton's tautological rule to incorrectly demonstrate fitness altruism.
Right and left miss THE theoretical (as against just the modeling)
point: Darwinism was and remains predicated on Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF) as a falsifiable maximand fitness (cannot be reduced to something
less for any reason). TDF is defined as: the total number of strictly
fertile forms reproduced per parent per population. Nature works
endlessly to mutualize TDF's within evolving populations. Amazingly,
fitness altruism has and remains mistaken for fitness altruism. A
deliberate reduction of TDF is absolutely required to be able to
distinguish real altruism from a mutual investment. This can only be
measured relative to some proposed fitness frame of reference which was
and remains missing within Hamilton's Rule and only implied within
Darwinism. Note that the evolution of a reduced TDF, which alone can
prove an altruistic fitness in nature, provides a critical point of
falsification for Darwinism (but not for Neo Darwinism). To this day no
TDF reduction gene has ever been observed. What has been observed is
behavior which may constitute a relative altruistic fitness reduction
AND/OR A TDF INVESTMENT (an increased i.e. not decreased donor's TDF).
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
Phil Roberts, Jr.
> http://richarddawkins.net/
>
> Dawkins official website bills itself as "an oasis of clear thinking".
> However, Dawkins et al continue to misuse Haldane/Hamilton's critically
> oversimplified model which remains based on Hamilton's Rule. The misuse
> of Hamilton's mathematics alone allows Dawkins' selfish genes to provide
> altruistic in fitness fertile organisms. The net result: a misused,
> non falsifiable poly-centric model of mono-centric Darwinism, is rapidly
> transforming Professor Dawkins into a cult figure.
Wrong on two counts, John.
a. Mathematical models of natural selection ARE falsifiable:
Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection. If you
look at the way natural selection works, it seems to follow
that anything that has evolved by natural selection should
be selfish. Therefore we must expect that when we go and
look at the behaviour of baboons, humans, and all other
living creatures, we shall find it to be selfish. If we
find that our expectation is wrong, if we observe that human
behavior is truly altruistic, then we shall be faced with
something puzzling, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS EXPLAINING
[my caps] (Richard Dawkins).
b. Mathematical models of natural selection HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED:
We are "nicer than is good for our selfish genes," and "we are never
allowed to forget the narrow tightrope on which we balance above the
Darwinian abyss." (Dawkins, 1996).
...
John Edser
>> JE:- Dawkins official website bills itself as "an oasis of clear
>> thinking". However, Dawkins et al continue to misuse
>> Haldane/Hamilton's critically oversimplified model which remains
>> based on Hamilton's Rule. The misuse of Hamilton's mathematics
>> alone allows Dawkins' selfish genes to provide altruistic in
>> fitness fertile organisms. The net result: a misused, non
>> falsifiable poly-centric model of mono-centric Darwinism, is
>> rapidly transforming Professor Dawkins into a cult figure.
> Wrong on two counts, John. a. Mathematical models of natural
> selection ARE falsifiable:
>
> Humans and baboons have evolved by natural selection. If you look at
> the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything
> that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish. Therefore
> we must expect that when we go and look at the behaviour of baboons,
> humans, and all other living creatures, we shall find it to be
> selfish. If we find that our expectation is wrong, if we observe
> that human behavior is truly altruistic, then we shall be faced with
> something puzzling, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS EXPLAINING [my caps]
> (Richard Dawkins).
JE:-
Hi Phil,
You do not appear to understand that the Neo Darwinian model, which
includes Haldane and Hamilton's mathematics for the evolution of a
fertile organism altruistic fitness via "selfish genes" ( which was
derived from Darwinian theory via an uncorrected oversimplification),
was and remains tautological (just 100% self referential). A tautology
cannot be falsified simply because it is just a tautology. All that can
be done is to non verify it. A non verification is not equivalent to a
refutation.
The only way to render the Neo Darwinian mathematical model non
tautological and therefore, even possibly empirically falsifiable, is to
define a specific fitness constant within it. Fitness selfishness as
well as fitness altruism absolutely require this missing constant. IOW,
Darwinian fitness, which has been continually misrepresented by Social
Darwinism as just rampant selfishness sanctioning murder etc via the
misuse of Spencer's notorious "survival of the fittest" (which is also
just another empty tautology) remains incomplete without this missing
fitness constant. The simple truth is that Darwin did not formally
complete his theory.
When Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) is placed into the oversimplified Neo
Darwinian model of Darwinism BOTH fitness altruism and fitness
selfishness transform into total fitness mutualism. What routinely
passes for fitness altruism within Hamilton's rule is actually
misdiagnosed Total Fitness Mutualism. IOW, what passes for altruism in
nature actually represents an investment and _not_ a donation. Without
TDF it always was and remains today, impossible to be able to separate
one from the other because the Neo Darwinian mathematics has no valid
frame of reference.
The "SOMETHING THAT NEEDS EXPLAINING" on a falsifiable basis is Haldane
and Hamilton's polycentric proposal for the evolution of fertile
organism fitness altruism via only supposed, independent in fitness
"selfish genes". This missing explanation is routinely evaded because
like ID, the oversimplified Neo Darwinian model cannot possibly be
falsified. Hence the unseemly spectacle of Professor Dawkins et al
debating evolution Vs ID on the grounds of just belief/disbelief. The
correct grounds: falsifiable or not falsifiable resulting in empirically
falsified or non falsified.
Science does not require belief or even, disbelief. For example, the
common question: "do you believe in evolution" is just a contradiction
in terms. This is because mono-centric Darwinian evolution via natural
selection represents an empirically falsifiable theory, IOW, not a non
falsifiable belief like ID.
>
> b. Mathematical models of natural selection HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED:
>
> We are "nicer than is good for our selfish genes," and "we are never
> allowed to forget the narrow tightrope on which we balance above the
> Darwinian abyss." (Dawkins, 1996).
JE:-
Again: a tautology cannot be falsified just non verified. This remains
true of even the most sophisticated mathematical tautology.
The above Dawkins quote represents what I term "Dawkins Paradox" (see
previous post).
Alberto Gómez Corona
First, a separation between mutual investment and altruism is non
scientific, because it implies somehow a belief about the organism
intentions. Both belief and intention are non scientific terms that
have a at most a metaphoric meaning. Just like when I say that a group
of genes "want" to do something in an animal. If you and me keep close
to the facts, evolution is about correlation, not causation or
intention. Living beings stay alive because there are a good
correlations between the environment and their inherited/learned
responses codified by fortunate gene sequences. The internal states of
the animals, their internal beliefs, and ours, are part of these
strategies. I don=B4t favor at all to use terms as selfish or altruist
or even mutual investment except as a shortcut for something more
abstract. The neutral term to be used would be to call all of them
"strategies with more or less delayed returns, even returns beyond the
current generation" without regard of the essentialist qualifications,
that add nothing but introducing political agendas in the core of the
science. I love politics, but not at the core facts.
I know that this is common sense, but in a day to day basis it is
ignored and not carried out to the extreme consequences. Altruism as
such has no definition that does not implies some form of belief in
the observer or the observed. But beliefs and moral colorations
obscure the search for explanations. First, because they are human
specie specific. second, because we are masters at lying ourselves
about our "true" altruism. We are biased towards thinking that we are
altruists because this self image has "selfish" rewards, as
Evolutionary Psychology proves. There is a coming book of Robert
Trivers about the subject.
If we relabel altruism as "strategy with a return beyond the current
generation" I may be comfortable with the term, but I see no essential
difference with other strategies. This abstract point of view is
essential for the search of wider explanations.
The second point is about the misery of NeoDarwinism. I agree with you
that it is a oversimplification., The multilevel selection theory is
far more complete. I bet of this theory.
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/R=
ethinking%20sociobiology.pdf
There are greath research in the mathematics of multilevel selection
theory, for example, http://eebweb.arizona.edu/Michod/ .
> such a constant provides two epistemological tools for evolutionary theor=