Cancer and evolution
phillip smith
idea that cancer played a role in evolution. From memory the idea was that
tumours could over time evolve into organs. I gues if you have a genetic
predisposition to a cancer in a particular tissue then modifiers could e
selected for that ameliorated some of the negative effects and may be
conferred new properties of to the tumor turning it into an organ. I am
trying to find out who put forward the idea. From memory he was a fellow New
Zealander and I think he was a lawyer by trade. If this rings any bells
please let me know.
[moderator's note: Phillip may be referring to James Graham's 1992
book, "Cancer Selection", which he self-published (and was kind enough
to send me a copy). Jim was a regular participant in this newsgroup
for a time after that, but I haven't seen him around in a while. As
I recall, he lives in Virginia, not NZ....Googling "Cancer Selection"
and "evolution" brings up a number of related sites; this may be the
most useful: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=16
If that's not what you're talking about, I dunno what you're talking
about. :-) -JAH]
--
Phillip Smith
phills@(buggger).co.nz replace bugger with ihug
http://www.applied-evolution.co.nz
"he who is smeared with blubber has the kindest heart" -- a Greenland Eskimo
adage
phillip smith
deleteth...@ihug.co.nz wrote on 5/11/04 4:48 AM:
> [moderator's note: Phillip may be referring to James Graham's 1992
> book, "Cancer Selection", which he self-published (and was kind enough
> to send me a copy). Jim was a regular participant in this newsgroup
> for a time after that, but I haven't seen him around in a while. As
> I recall, he lives in Virginia, not NZ....Googling "Cancer Selection"
> and "evolution" brings up a number of related sites; this may be the
> most useful: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=16
> If that's not what you're talking about, I dunno what you're talking
> about. :-) -JAH]
Just after posting this I found the references referred to above. I'm not
sure if this is the guy/theory. At not sure of the when I read about this it
seems this was a little later. But I've probably got it all wrong. Maybe it
was a dream.
If no one has put forward the idea that tumours may evolve into organs I
here by stake my claim to this theory ;-). What we need is some sort of
central registry of evolutionary theories. While were at it another
registry for theories of sex
Anthony Campbell
> Back in the mid 80's I think 86 87. I remember some one putting forward the
> idea that cancer played a role in evolution. From memory the idea was that
> tumours could over time evolve into organs. I gues if you have a genetic
> predisposition to a cancer in a particular tissue then modifiers could e
> selected for that ameliorated some of the negative effects and may be
> conferred new properties of to the tumor turning it into an organ. I am
> trying to find out who put forward the idea. From memory he was a fellow New
> Zealander and I think he was a lawyer by trade. If this rings any bells
> please let me know.
>
> [moderator's note: Phillip may be referring to James Graham's 1992
> book, "Cancer Selection", which he self-published (and was kind enough
> to send me a copy). Jim was a regular participant in this newsgroup
> for a time after that, but I haven't seen him around in a while. As
> I recall, he lives in Virginia, not NZ....Googling "Cancer Selection"
> and "evolution" brings up a number of related sites; this may be the
> most useful: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=16
> If that's not what you're talking about, I dunno what you're talking
> about. :-) -JAH]
>
>
Probably not what the OP was thinking of, but possibly relevant:
Bruce Charlton, a lecturer in epidemiology and public health at the
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, has proposed the term "endogenous
parasitism" to describe the processes of cancer development and aging.
His idea is that natural selection will act to favour the replication of
"selfish" genes at the expense of those which are supposed to regulate
cells.
Reference:
Charlton BG. 'Senescence, cancer, and "endogenous parasites": a
salutogenic hypothesis'. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians,
1996;30:10-12
AC
--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews,
Assassins, homeopathy, and skeptical articles).
Email: replace "www" with "ac@"
John Edser
Anthony Campbell <m...@privacy.net>
Subject: Re: Cancer and evolution
> AC:-
> Bruce Charlton, a lecturer in epidemiology and public health at the
> University of Newcastle upon Tyne, has proposed the term "endogenous
> parasitism" to describe the processes of cancer development and aging.
> His idea is that natural selection will act to favour the replication of
> "selfish" genes at the expense of those which are supposed to regulate
> cells.
> Reference:
> Charlton BG. 'Senescence, cancer, and "endogenous parasites": a
> salutogenic hypothesis'. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians,
> 1996;30:10-12
JE:-
At last a self consistent theory of selfish geneism!
If a gene is self consistently selfish then it must
over replicate _within_ and not just _between_ Darwinian
fertile organism generations of that gene. Of course,
cancer provides a classical case of what happens to
real selfish geneism. It simply evolves to extinction.
The reason why this is the case is not obvious.
If genes form nested sets of fitness then genes can
only be selected as a part of the largest set they
are nested within. This can be tested refutation
to be the Darwinian fertile organism
level of fitness. This being the case selfish genes
cannot be selected for. This will not stop them
appearing via random processes, i.e. as a part of
heritable variation. It just means nature should
select against cancerous cells when they do appear.
The vigour by which nature selects against them may
vary with age. Indeed cancer could evolve to become
a mutualised (a process where both the Darwinian
fertile organism level and the cell level evolve
an absolute and not just relative fitness compliment)
if the death of the organism actually increases and
does not decrease that organisms Darwinian fitness.
At first glance such a situation appears an impossibility.
However I submit that since parents have to die because
of a physics entropy maximand then dying at the right
time and place to benefit their own absolute Darwinian
fitness total could evolve to become a mutualised benefit.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Wirt Atmar
>If no one has put forward the idea that tumours may evolve into organs I
>here by stake my claim to this theory ;-). What we need is some sort of
>central registry of evolutionary theories. While we're at it another
>registry for theories of sex.
That "registry" already exists and has for several hundred years. It's called
the peer-reviewed literature. The first publication date of an idea is the one
that assumes priority. It really doesn't matter where you publish your ideas.
Mendel's work appeared in a little-read Swiss agricultural journal, but it was
published. When his theories and genetical phenomena were independently
rediscovered at the end of the century, and it was found that he had published
the same work 40 years earlier, all credit was given to Mendel.
Similarly but obversely, if a theory is never published, it is given little or
no weight. Talk and usenet groups are cheap. They simply don't count, although
self-publishing sometimes does work. Charles Darwin and Stephen Wolfram both
chose to self-publish their own work, but that creates, as it should, a much
higher hurdle to clear for general acceptance.
Unfortunately, publishing in peer-reviewed literature is a difficult task, if
for no other reason than to be published, you have to back up your ideas with
demonstrable proof that they could at least be true.
Wirt Atmar
Peter F
"phillip smith" <deleteth...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:cmdj0u$2l3k$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Back in the mid 80's I think 86 87. I remember some one putting forward the
As far as can think, cancer is a relict last ditch response
(normally masked by genomic control codes)
to a SHITS;
Or rather, to recall a common scenario in the primordial sea/sludge,
to an "Irritating Cloud" Type Situation.
By "Irritation" I indicate irritation of any kind:
electrochemical and radioactive radiation;
kinetic;
chemical;
viral;
and secondary/combining with the former "stress hormonal".
BTW, since one of my mentally oriented hobbies
is to find catchy abbreviations,
ICTS can stand for what, in more recent phylogenetic
contexts, are lifetime pressures that suits
being described as:
Inducing CURSES Type Situations;
and that, as an abbreviation, also deserves to be
pronounced in a Czech way
(if you see what I mean ;->).
Furthermore, if there is a naturally selected cause of cancers,
it would have to be the "opportunity type selective pressure" for a
population to prevail through some of its less (or non) re/productive
members dying off.
P
Malcolm
"Wirt Atmar" <wirt...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >If no one has put forward the idea that tumours may evolve into organs I
> >here by stake my claim to this theory ;-). What we need is some sort of
> >central registry of evolutionary theories. While we're at it another
> >registry for theories of sex.
>
was
> published. When his theories and genetical phenomena were independently
> rediscovered at the end of the century, and it was found that he had
> published the same work 40 years earlier, all credit was given to Mendel.
>
selection (On Naval Timber and Aboriculture, Matthew, 1831) a good time
before Darwin. Most students doing biology degrees have heard of him in
passing, but the name is not familiar to the general public.
>
> Similarly but obversely, if a theory is never published, it is given
little or
> no weight. Talk and usenet groups are cheap. They simply don't count,
>
sufficient to establish priority.
>
> Unfortunately, publishing in peer-reviewed literature is a difficult task,
if
> for no other reason than to be published, you have to back up your ideas
> with demonstrable proof that they could at least be true.
>
ideas are so brilliant that their truth and importance is obvious for all to
see. It may be that tumours can evolve from organs (and certainly at some
point animals must have gone from a model with a defined number of cells,
like C elegans, to a body plan with variable cells). You would have to put a
lot of work in to see if cancer was a factor in this step.
Peer reviewing is a return to the idea of arguing from authority. As a rule,
authority is right. Unfortunately, in the US lawyers have begun to allow
educators to exclude creationism from schools on the grounds that it is not
scientific, because they cannot get their works published in the
peer-reviewed literature. Creationists might not be able to get work past
peer reviews because it is not scientific, but their work is not
unscientific because it is rejected. Your typical lawyer or politician
cannot be expected to make this distinction, but it is crucial.
The economics of journals is all wrong. If you need to access the
peer-reviewed literature you will know what a frustrating experience it can
be. Even if your institution has a licence to see the copies, instead of
being freely published and cross-linked on the web (what the web was
designed for) the information is locked away behind menu screens, there is a
huge amount of link chasing, and frequently at the end of the chase the full
text is not available. If people got into the habit of publishing here then
it would solve many problems, but then there would be no quality control
(except from our esteemed moderator).
William Morse
news:cmhghv$q1u$1...@darwin.ediacara.org:
Unfortunately even that is not always enough. Apparently a canadian
geologist named Lawrence Morley was unable to get a paper on seafloor
spreading published in the 1960's because the idea, even though true, was
so totally outside of the accepted wisdom at the time. Usenet groups
suffer from the opposite problem - there is so much accepted ignorance
(not necessarily a bad thing - the overall level of knowledge still
increases) that even patently worthless ideas get attention.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Tim Tyler
> >What we need is some sort of central registry of evolutionary theories.
> >While we're at it another registry for theories of sex.
>
> That "registry" already exists and has for several hundred years. It's called
> the peer-reviewed literature. The first publication date of an idea is the one
> that assumes priority. It really doesn't matter where you publish your ideas.
> Mendel's work appeared in a little-read Swiss agricultural journal, but it was
> published. When his theories and genetical phenomena were independently
> rediscovered at the end of the century, and it was found that he had published
> the same work 40 years earlier, all credit was given to Mendel.
>
> Similarly but obversely, if a theory is never published, it is given
> little or no weight. Talk and usenet groups are cheap. They simply
> don't count, although self-publishing sometimes does work. Charles
> Darwin and Stephen Wolfram both chose to self-publish their own work,
> but that creates, as it should, a much higher hurdle to clear for
> general acceptance.
I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
I consider usenet a publishing medium - and a jolly good one - since
it is continuously publicly archived - anyone can access it free of
charge.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Tim Tyler
> If no one has put forward the idea that tumours may evolve into organs I
> here by stake my claim to this theory ;-).
It seems like a pretty odd theory ;-)
What would the most likely candidate case?
phillip smith
wrote on 8/11/04 11:52 AM:
>
> What would the most likely candidate case?
With increase diagnostics there is a phenomenon occurring in the medical
arena referred to over diagnosis or pseudo-disease. This is where detection
occurs of tumors that seem to have no lethal effects and you are more likely
to die with than from.
I know two people with these conditions in one is a small tumour in the
brain which apparently puts pressure on the pituitary gland causing the
release of excessive testosterone. This has the effect of causing increased
aggression and excessive sexual appetite. Presumably there is some genetic
predisposition to this condition and the person appears to have had this all
his life. It was only detected by accident during a company sponsored
medical scan.
The other is a chromic lymphatic leukemia. Which causes increased white cell
counts. I don't now what the phenotypic effects of this are but it is not
normally fatal.
I think it is not a huge leap to imagine conditions under which either of
these conditions could be selected for. And modifiers selected for that
stabilise the condition.
Tumour cells are capable of extraordinary rates of evolution resulting in
chemotherapy resistance and angiogenisis. There are new models of
tumourogenisis being suggested where tumour growth is not simply clonal over
growth but the result of cooperatiom and perhaps competition between
subpopulations. So it may be possible for tumours to evolve into more
complex organs than just clumps of cells.
While it seems a long stretch of the imagination to suggest that legs and
arms can evolve from tumours perhaps organs in the endocrine system easily
could. All you need is a buch of cells that release some chemical at the
appropriate time and appropriate amount.
It is just an Idea.
John Edser
William Morse <wdm...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:-
> > Unfortunately, publishing in peer-reviewed literature is a difficult
> > task, if for no other reason than to be published, you have to back up
> > your ideas with demonstrable proof that they could at least be true.
> WM:-
> Unfortunately even that is not always enough. Apparently a canadian
> geologist named Lawrence Morley was unable to get a paper on seafloor
> spreading published in the 1960's because the idea, even though true, was
> so totally outside of the accepted wisdom at the time. Usenet groups
> suffer from the opposite problem - there is so much accepted ignorance
> (not necessarily a bad thing - the overall level of knowledge still
> increases) that even patently worthless ideas get attention.
JE:-
The main point here is that it is NOT ACCEPTABLE
that the multi billions of taxpayer's dollars that
are invested in public funded science worldwide,
should produce such a _disastrous_ group selective
event. Ideas that are "totally outside of the accepted
wisdom at the time" must be allowed to freely compete
with established views even if such competition threatens
the status of highly respected individuals. Popper
provided the only valid referee: REFUTABILITY. Only
Popper et al had the integrity to provide a format by
which the problem of free competition of ideas within
the sciences could be solved. While all ideas can be
debated, only if an idea is refutable can it be
allowed to compete. When it is not refutable it must be
excluded from competing. Many established views are NOT
refutable. I have debated this fact here for over 4 years.
Within evolutionary theory non refutable models of
refutable theory have incorrectly been allowed to
compete and win against the theory from which they
were oversimplified. My chosen example is Hamilton's
Rule. The misuse of this rule sums up everything
that has been going wrong with evolutionary over
the last 50 years. OTOH it is totally acceptable that
"Usenet groups suffer from the opposite problem"
because these groups to not consume billions of
taxpayer's dollars in research funding worldwide.
The solution is to find a balance between these two
extreme forms of publication: highly restricted peer
review papers that have a proven track record of
incorrectly excluding testable to refutation theories
while at the same time protecting favoured non refutable
views and the self regulated "anarchy" of discussion
groups like sbe. It seems obvious to me that sbe
peer reviewed papers would be an experimental step
in the right direction to find a middle ground.
The dictatorial ivory tower mentality that science
has suffered from is now, thankfully, all but extinct.
Technology increases the flow of information and
thus the speed of accountability. To delay one
you have to delay the other. In any highly
centralised system group selective forces
can be manipulated to provide unscrupulous
individual gains. Only competition will
allow such misuse to be exposed allowing
accountability.
Earle Jones
William Morse <wdm...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> wirt...@aol.com (Wirt Atmar) wrote in
> news:cmhghv$q1u$1...@darwin.ediacara.org:
>
> > Phillip writes:
> >
> >>If no one has put forward the idea that tumours may evolve into organs
> >>I here by stake my claim to this theory ;-).
*
I remember reading a book by one of my favorite authors (when I was
in my teens and twenties) George R. Stewart. In one of his books
('Storm', 'Earth Abides', or ??) a young medical student proposes to
his professor that it might be possible to induce cancerous cells to
form useful organs in the body.
This would have been written, probably in the 1940s or perhaps the
'50s.
earle
*
"There is nothing new under the sun."
--Isaiah
John Edser
> TT:-
> I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
> I consider usenet a publishing medium - and a jolly good one - since
> it is continuously publicly archived - anyone can access it free of
> charge.
JE:-
Would TT please comment on a proposal
for sbe to set up an elected review
panel in order to electronically publish
sbe peer reviewed papers.
John Edser
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:-
> *
> I remember reading a book by one of my favorite authors (when I was
> in my teens and twenties) George R. Stewart. In one of his books
> ('Storm', 'Earth Abides', or ??) a young medical student proposes to
> his professor that it might be possible to induce cancerous cells to
> form useful organs in the body.
>
> This would have been written, probably in the 1940s or perhaps the
> '50s.
>
> earle
> *
>
> "There is nothing new under the sun."
JE:-
One of the reasons Wallace allowed Darwin to
take centre stage is because Darwin had done
most of the work developing a theory
of evolution by natural selection. It is one
thing to come up with an idea but quite another
to spend 20 years investigating it. Priority
should be given to authors who spend time
and hard work testing their theories. Darwin's
single minded testing of his theory allowed
science to enjoy the fruits of his labours.
Wallace realised this leaving mostly Darwin
et al to continue to debate evolution by
natural selection.
Wirt Atmar
>I think that if you posted an important new theory to this ng, that would be
>sufficient to establish priority.
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that theorization, hypothesis
formation and wild-eyed speculation are what "don't count," not the forum per
se. Being able to provide demonstrable, repeatable evidence that your ideas
could be correct is what matters in science.
Every dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying scientist has in his pockets one or two
pounds of Missouri dirt, where the state motto is: "Show me." If you can't show
me with real physical evidence that what you're claiming could at least be
plausibly true, you haven't told me anything. You're just another snake-oil
salesman with wild ideas.
Now this is not to say that people don't often propose important new theories
to newsgroups. I've personally heard that the earth is hollow, that Planet X is
approaching, and that there were aliens hiding behind Hale-Bopp. While many of
these hypotheses are surprisingly detailed in their formulations, they haven't
proven so far to be especially accurate. But even more importantly, what I have
yet to see is anyone providing any physical evidence in a newsgroup that their
ideas were true.
If someone is going to take the time and do the hard work of gathering the
necessary supporting evidence to validate their ideas, they're not likely to
put it up on a newsgroup and leave it at that. If what they have to say is
true, important and truly novel, they'll want to have it appear in the most
prestigious journal possible, where it will be given the greatest degree of
initial credibility it might be.
Clearly, I'm not antipathetic to newsgroups. I've been submitting postings here
for ten years now. They serve a purpose, but they're more akin to beer halls
than scientific journals. But then again, there's nothing wrong with beer
halls, especially if they help make you think.
Wirt Atmar
Maurice Barnhill
> Wirt Atmar <wirt...@aol.com> wrote or quoted P. Smith as writing:
>
>
>>>What we need is some sort of central registry of evolutionary theories.
>>>While we're at it another registry for theories of sex.
>>
>>That "registry" already exists and has for several hundred years. It's called
>>the peer-reviewed literature. The first publication date of an idea is the one
>>that assumes priority. It really doesn't matter where you publish your ideas.
>>Mendel's work appeared in a little-read Swiss agricultural journal, but it was
>>published. When his theories and genetical phenomena were independently
>>rediscovered at the end of the century, and it was found that he had published
>>the same work 40 years earlier, all credit was given to Mendel.
>>
>>Similarly but obversely, if a theory is never published, it is given
>>little or no weight. Talk and usenet groups are cheap. They simply
>>don't count, although self-publishing sometimes does work. Charles
>>Darwin and Stephen Wolfram both chose to self-publish their own work,
>>but that creates, as it should, a much higher hurdle to clear for
>>general acceptance.
>
>
> I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
There is no point in going through the effort of writing up your
ideas understandably unless you want to convince someone that the
idea is correct or at least clever. Who do you want to convince?
The logical ultimate target is the people who have thought most
carefully about the general area of knowledge your idea
addresses. These people are in current times mostly (although
not entirely) professionals, and professionals are very, very
unlikely to pay attention to anything not in the refereed
literature. If nothing else, they don't have time to read
everything and the refereeing processes weeds out most of the
nonsense while losing very little of the valuable stuff. Very
rarely some valuable stuff is lost, but the amount of work
required to find it elsewhere when it doesn't reach the standard
literature is impossible to undertake.
If you don't care what the most thoughtful people know about your
idea, ignore the refereed literature. If you feel that
targetting such people is elitist, that's fine, you don't care
what such people think anyway, you don't have to try to publish
in refereed journals.
>
> I consider usenet a publishing medium - and a jolly good one - since
> it is continuously publicly archived - anyone can access it free of
> charge.
It all depends on who you want to reach.
--
Maurice Barnhill
m...@udel.edu [Use ReplyTo, not From]
[bellatlantic.net is reserved for spam only]
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Tim Tyler
> > TT:-
> > I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
> > I consider usenet a publishing medium - and a jolly good one - since
> > it is continuously publicly archived - anyone can access it free of
> > charge.
>
> JE:-
> Would TT please comment on a proposal
> for sbe to set up an elected review
> panel in order to electronically publish
> sbe peer reviewed papers.
I can't think of much to say to that :-|
I rather doubt whether I'd want to be personally involved - as
reviewer, reviewed or voter - in any such scheme.
Tim Tyler
> If someone is going to take the time and do the hard work of gathering the
> necessary supporting evidence to validate their ideas, they're not likely to
> put it up on a newsgroup and leave it at that. If what they have to say is
> true, important and truly novel, they'll want to have it appear in the most
> prestigious journal possible, where it will be given the greatest degree of
> initial credibility it might be.
If what *I* have to say is important or truly novel I want to place
it into the public domain - so that every individual on the planet
has free and unrestricted access to it as rapidly as possible.
What I *don't* want to do is copyright it - and then attempt to
*restrict* viewers to those prepared to pay for the information.
That would represent a crude attempt to limit the cirulation of what
I have to say tremendously - for the sake of making a few bucks.
I typically don't want to do that - I'd rather have a wide audience
than a tiny one.
"Prestigious journals" are actually censored, pay-per-view forums.
Basically, the existing laws create a scientific publishing circus -
where articles acquire flashy headlines and startling conclusions
which seem evidently more designed to sell the journals they are
published in than to advance science - and abstracts become the
equivalent of getting the first hit for free :-(
Malcolm
"Wirt Atmar" <wirt...@aol.com> wrote
>
> What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that theorization,
hypothesis
> formation and wild-eyed speculation are what "don't count," not the forum
> per se. Being able to provide demonstrable, repeatable evidence that your
> ideas could be correct is what matters in science.
>
school with a bit of salt. That is not to say that it is wholly wrong, but
it is simplified.
For instance the behaviourists measured learning rates in rats trained to
press levers for rewards to to avoid electrical shocks, and they worked out
the voltage of shock and even the dimensions of the cage that caused optimal
learning. These experiments had very good repeatability. Eventually,
however, it was realised that though they were repeatable and rigorous, they
had very little relevance.
Ironically, when it was shown that rats take many trials to learn to press a
lever to avoid a shock, but if given flavoured food paired with
radioactivity (which causes nausea) they learn to avoid that flavour in a
single trial, there was great difficulty getting the work published. However
the evolutionary investigation of rat behaviour is far more fruitful than a
naive objective "lets look at repeatable phenomena" approach.
Peter F
> It all depends on who you want to reach.
Since cancer is a 'contrary' diease, I guess it is somehow apt that this thread
has mutated to be so different to what the original subject-line header says! :-\
So here I go:
If the gist of what a person has figured out, and has available to hand out,
is basically an awful and hopeless aspect of Truth, then the motivation
and 'garrulous goal' behind pushing it towards any kind of potential takers
can only (or almost only ;) be the same (or something very similar) to
why most addicts [addicts to ideas - such as religious people;
addicts to less conceptual forms of behaviour
such as physical thrill-seekers, gamblers, and obsessive "gatherers";
and addicts to exogenous addictive drugs - such as food addicts, and people hooked on
alcohol, nicotine, heroin, and cocaine] usually prefer to share their burden of
addictive urges with others.
The most important common and _conditioned-in_ 'negative'
cause of these urges, is what I name/define as CURSES (alt. CCKHHURSES),
and the primary 'positive' motivational effect of CURSES is
an instinctively pursued goal to gain relief from more or less tonic and chronic pangs
of psychological pain (and even to briefly replace such pain
with the occassional feeling of pleasure.
.
In the case of such of "having a cause", it does basically not matter much to
whom such a cluey cause is being presented. The result will be much the same.
That is, only an already excEPTionally philosophically and otherwise aligned
intercEPTee will be able to agree.
P
--
Partly inspired by MAD (cold war shaming acronym), I arrived at EPT
[e.g: eclectically Explanatory perversely Pert
philosophical Terminology] and by concEPTual lenses/tools saw/grasped how
and why AEVASIVE preoccupations (personalites) normally preclude making
in dEPTh sense (of themselves).
In the acronym for Ambiadvantageously Evolved Vexed Actention
Selection (System) Involving Various Endorphins, AS(S) stand for how we
think/emote/behave based on our individual repertoire of competing {by
mutual inhibition) whilst cheered and booed {by current and past
environmental influences) "actention modules", & AE refer to the didactic
division of the Evolutionary Pressure Totality into relevant dialectic
lifetime juxtapositions of:
1. Opportunity
2. Adversity - here especially SHITS [Synaptic Hibernation Imploring
{naturally selective AND 'motivating' of selective unconsciousness)
Traumatic {also tardily so) Situations] normally repercussively retained as
CURSES type memory (aka "Pain", ą la Janov)
John Edser
Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> TT:-
> Subject: Publishing scientific information
> If what *I* have to say is important or truly novel I want to place
> it into the public domain - so that every individual on the planet
> has free and unrestricted access to it as rapidly as possible.
> What I *don't* want to do is copyright it - and then attempt to
> *restrict* viewers to those prepared to pay for the information.
> That would represent a crude attempt to limit the cirulation of what
> I have to say tremendously - for the sake of making a few bucks.
> I typically don't want to do that - I'd rather have a wide audience
> than a tiny one.
JE:-
It can be a "chicken and egg argument". The private
sector exists via profits. Unless a research
journal can be sold for money, private research
that is unbiased (i.e. not subsidised) fails to materialise.
Unbiased research requires the actual research to make the
money putting the profit motive squarely on refutable
truth and nothing else. This requires pure research to
be sold within journals or applied research to raise
money using patents. OTOH the public sector is
financed using taxation. To charge the public
twice is simply not ethical. Public funded
research journals should be freely available
on the internet because he public paid fore them
in advance.
> TT:-
> "Prestigious journals" are actually censored, pay-per-view forums.
> Basically, the existing laws create a scientific publishing circus -
> where articles acquire flashy headlines and startling conclusions
> which seem evidently more designed to sell the journals they are
> published in than to advance science - and abstracts become the
> equivalent of getting the first hit for free :-(
JE:-
This circus is mostly due to the fact
of artificially limited competition.
Because most pure research remains publicly
funded "peer review" can be
abused to reduce competition. Here more
powerful individuals attempt to maintain a
higher status position against competition
from lower status individuals with
better ideas by having these individuals and
their ideas unethically censored. Such
events can delay/stops the evolution of
science and are to nobodies absolute
advantage.
Peer review is a very complex process
because we are all biased.
You can prove this using double blind
cross over testing. This is why I argue
that an sbe peer review process to
electronically publish sbe papers would
be of immense value because it would
bring some of these problems out into
the open as well as supplying a reachable
goal for sbe subscribers and a higher grade
of evolutionary theory information within
sbe itself.
John Edser
Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> > > TT:-
> > > I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
> > > I consider usenet a publishing medium - and a jolly good one - since
> > > it is continuously publicly archived - anyone can access it free of
> > > charge.
> > JE:-
> > Would TT please comment on a proposal
> > for sbe to set up an elected review
> > panel in order to electronically publish
> > sbe peer reviewed papers.
> TT:-
> I can't think of much to say to that :-|
> I rather doubt whether I'd want to be personally involved - as
> reviewer, reviewed or voter - in any such scheme.
JE:-
Would TT please outline his case against
such a scheme for the benefit of sbe
readers.
Malcolm
>
> This circus is mostly due to the fact of artificially limited competition.
>
have to subscribe to Nature. Two subscriptions to Science will not
sustitute.
>
> Because most pure research remains publicly funded "peer review" can be
> abused to reduce competition. Here more powerful individuals attempt to
> maintain a higher status position against competition from lower status
> individuals with better ideas by having these individuals and their ideas
> unethically censored.
>
competent but sub-average research, and of course it has the potential to
keep out important new theories from outside. Historically, almost every big
scientific breakthrough has been from people who were outside the formal
hierarchy. However this doesn't mean that almost everyone from outside the
hierarchy produces a big breakthrough.
>
> This is why I argue that an sbe peer review process to
> electronically publish sbe papers would be of immense value because it
> would bring some of these problems out into the open as well as supplying
a
theory
> information within sbe itself.
>
publish. Peer review is one method for deciding how to choose the limited
number of papers you will publish. To regard it as anything more than that,
for instance as a benchmark of accuracy, is making the mistake of arguing
from authority.
An electronic journal doesn't have the same problem, so we need to develop
different techniques for evaluating content.
John Edser
"Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > JE:-
> > This circus is mostly due to the fact of artificially limited
> > competition.
> M:-
> The problem is, there is no competition. If you are an academic
> library, you
> have to subscribe to Nature. Two subscriptions to Science will not
> sustitute.
JE:-
Yes. Mostly, both libraries and the researchers
who compete for publication in journals like "Nature"
are funded by the public sector which remains
overly conservative because, IMHO, the public sector is
group selective. This means publications can be excluded for
the benefit of a "peer group" at some hapless individual's
expense. Such individuals normally only occupy an "out group"
position so nobody really cares. This is the primitive
logic of tribalism. We inherited it and it remains with us.
The gross result is that more powerful individuals can employ
false group selective arguments to just unethically benefit
themselves (group selective arguments were just a ploy).
However, the net result is that everybody loses because
the evolution of science becomes retarded. As an extreme
example Lysenko's genetics was forced by Stalin to
be taught so that Mendelian genetics was excluded. The gross
result was that Stalin's lackeys obtained wealth and power
but people starved because the crops failed. I would
argue that over a lifetime they all lost, _absolutely_.
Unless benefits are totalled it becomes impossible
to identify just relative gains that cost an absolute
loss. Another example is the retardation of nuclear
physics under Hitler because he did not like racially
defined "Jewish" physics. This meant was that Hitler
failed to develop nuclear weapons ahead of the allies.
The relative benefit that Hitler produced for himself
and the Nazi Party by employing the scapegoat of
racialism cost him a war, his own life as well as
massive mayhem and destruction for millions of others.
The relative gain was not worth the absolute cost. Nature
understands such BASIC logic but gene centric Neo Darwinians
have proven they do not understand/refuse to understand
it, allowing Hamilton's rule where no fitness totals
even exist. If the Peer review process had worked
correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
with many other misused oversimplified models.
One day these chickens will come home to roost and
people will be made accountable. Until that time
each one of us here must take responsibility for what
we have chosen to evade/write.
> > JE:-
> > Because most pure research remains publicly funded "peer review" can be
> > abused to reduce competition. Here more powerful individuals attempt to
> > maintain a higher status position against competition from lower status
> > individuals with better ideas by having these individuals and
> > their ideas
> > unethically censored.
> M:-
> Peer reviewing does several things. It keeps out kook theories,
> it keeps out
> competent but sub-average research, and of course it has the potential to
> keep out important new theories from outside. Historically,
> almost every big
> scientific breakthrough has been from people who were outside the formal
> hierarchy. However this doesn't mean that almost everyone from outside the
> hierarchy produces a big breakthrough.
JE:-
I am not against peer review. That is why I proposed
a peer review process for sbe electronically published
papers. I am against artificially restricting competition
for just a "peer group" benefit. Publishing sbe
reviewed papers, apart from providing an alternative
forum and thus expanding competition may enlighten
readers to the _complexity_ of the peer review process.
Mostly, the actual peer review process remains hidden
because IMO it mostly becomes a game of tribal politics.
I want a totally transparent peer review process.
This could be achieved by the author of the paper under
review remaining anonymous, the peer review process
being done online (here within ordinary sbe discussion)
and allowing both highly qualified specialists and
unqualified non specialist into any review
process. A more democratic and efficient system of
peer review is very badly needed!
> > JE:-
> > This is why I argue that an sbe peer review process to
> > electronically publish sbe papers would be of immense value because it
> > would bring some of these problems out into the open as well as
> > supplying
> > a reachablegoal for sbe subscribers and a higher grade of evolutionary
> > theory
> > information within sbe itself.
> M:-
> Any paper journal worth the name has more material submitted than it can
> publish. Peer review is one method for deciding how to choose the limited
> number of papers you will publish. To regard it as anything more
> than that,
> for instance as a benchmark of accuracy, is making the mistake of arguing
> from authority.
> An electronic journal doesn't have the same problem, so we need to develop
> different techniques for evaluating content.
JE:-
I agree. What I attempting to do via my
proposition for sbe peer reviewed papers
is pioneer by experiment such different
techniques.
My personal proposition would be that
only ideas that provide real points of
refutation be allowed to publish.
This could be softened to allowing ideas
that need to be reworked to refutability,
i.e. ideas that are not yet testable
to refutation being published so that
others may find out a way to refine them so
they could be so tested. Under no circumstances
do I agree that non refutable ideas should be
allowed to compete and win against refutable
ideas. Of course all of this would be up to
any properly constituted sbe
peer review board.
At the moment the awful FACT
that creation science is being forced
to be taught in some USA science classrooms
has to be challenged and NOT JUST IGNORED.
My argument remains that this travesty can
only be corrected when the process of
Popperian refutability is put back into
evolutionary theory. I find it disturbing
in the extreme that the Neo Darwinians that
post here refuse to discuss such basics.
My Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
phillip smith
earle...@comcast.net wrote on 9/11/04 12:16 PM:
Upon reflection this is just another means by which genotype can map to
phenotype. The phenotype must be caused by a heritable change presumably a
change to the genome.
Tim Tyler
> >>Similarly but obversely, if a theory is never published, it is given
> >>little or no weight. Talk and usenet groups are cheap. They simply
> >>don't count, although self-publishing sometimes does work. Charles
> >>Darwin and Stephen Wolfram both chose to self-publish their own work,
> >>but that creates, as it should, a much higher hurdle to clear for
> >>general acceptance.
> >
> > I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
>
> There is no point in going through the effort of writing up your
> ideas understandably unless you want to convince someone that the
> idea is correct or at least clever. Who do you want to convince?
> The logical ultimate target is the people who have thought most
> carefully about the general area of knowledge your idea
> addresses. These people are in current times mostly (although
> not entirely) professionals, and professionals are very, very
> unlikely to pay attention to anything not in the refereed
> literature.
In my experience, this is completely untrue. I can think of
numerous highly talented individuals in their fields who have
participated in usenet in their time.
The internet has some advantages. In particular, it is more
up-to-date, contains more information - and is significantly
easier to search than any other publishing medium.
Also it is interactive in real time. If you have a question, you
can ask it and get an answer back in a reasonable space of time.
With peer reviewed journals there's often a turn around of months -
making such interaction impractical.
I don't think professionals as a class are blind to these advantages -
and I don't think its correct to say that they fail to take advantage
of them.
Even before the internet, much interaction between scientists was
*not* in the peer reviewed literature. Check the letters of
Charles Darwin - for example.
> If nothing else, they don't have time to read
> everything and the refereeing processes weeds out most of the
> nonsense while losing very little of the valuable stuff. Very
> rarely some valuable stuff is lost, but the amount of work
> required to find it elsewhere when it doesn't reach the standard
> literature is impossible to undertake.
Fortunately, filtering out irrelevant chaff can be done passably well
dynamically by computer programs - which can track references to the
document in question.
No doubt there will remain a market for "closed" publishing -
and pay-per-view documents filtered by humans - for some time -
but basically, I expect the internet to rip the guts out of
the business - and expect that most of the remaining material
fitting this description will wind up being funded by
advertising - not sales of the information itself.
It will become increasingly difficult to sell mere
information - because of the ease with which it
can be copied and redistributed free of charge.
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> > > JE:-
> > > Would TT please comment on a proposal
> > > for sbe to set up an elected review
> > > panel in order to electronically publish
> > > sbe peer reviewed papers.
>
> > TT:-
> > I can't think of much to say to that :-|
> > I rather doubt whether I'd want to be personally involved - as
> > reviewer, reviewed or voter - in any such scheme.
>
> JE:-
> Would TT please outline his case against
> such a scheme for the benefit of sbe readers.
I have no case against such a scheme.
Want to set one up? Be my guest.
Name And Address Supplied
> If the Peer review process had worked
> correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> with many other misused oversimplified models.
I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
current social evolutionary thought.
But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
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.
Malcolm
"Name And Address Supplied" <name_and_add...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
>
Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard, because he
is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
>
> Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> current social evolutionary thought.
>
understand the point that John is trying to make. As far as I understand it
Hamilton's theory is solid, until you allow recycling of benefits to other
relatives. However I am not sure this is biologically realistic (if I give a
hunk of meat to a hungry half sister, she is going to eat it, not pass some
of it on to her unrelated father).
Of course Hamilton's theory is current orthodoxy. If it wasn't there would
be no need for the crusade against it.
>
> But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
> Reviewers have to give reasons for rejecting a paper, and these are
> made available to the author.
>
academic post, and everyone knows that Hamilton was correct. Obviously a
kook theory and I won't waste much time on it." Then he compiles a list of
objections. The point is, you can compile a list of objections to anything,
including Darwin (read creationist literature) or Mendel (the statistics for
the peas are too good to be true, chi-squared always comes out at about 80 -
20 when 100 would be a perfect fit and 5 an incorrect rejection). So the
foundations of modern biology could have failed a peer review, had the
reviewer been so minded.
>
> 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.
>
John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae system but with
himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary conditioning.
Maurice Barnhill
> Maurice Barnhill <m...@udel.edu> wrote or quoted:
>
>>Tim Tyler wrote:
>>
>>>Wirt Atmar <wirt...@aol.com> wrote or quoted P. Smith as writing:
>
>
>>>>Similarly but obversely, if a theory is never published, it is given
>>>>little or no weight. Talk and usenet groups are cheap. They simply
>>>>don't count, although self-publishing sometimes does work. Charles
>>>>Darwin and Stephen Wolfram both chose to self-publish their own work,
>>>>but that creates, as it should, a much higher hurdle to clear for
>>>>general acceptance.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure in what sense usenet "doesn't count".
>>
>>There is no point in going through the effort of writing up your
>>ideas understandably unless you want to convince someone that the
>>idea is correct or at least clever. Who do you want to convince?
>> The logical ultimate target is the people who have thought most
>>carefully about the general area of knowledge your idea
>>addresses. These people are in current times mostly (although
>>not entirely) professionals, and professionals are very, very
>>unlikely to pay attention to anything not in the refereed
>>literature.
>
>
> In my experience, this is completely untrue. I can think of
> numerous highly talented individuals in their fields who have
> participated in usenet in their time.
>
There are a few here, but how many? Compare that to the number
who read any decent journal on evolution. On
sci.physics.research, where I can more easily recognize pros and
where giving a count won't offend anyone here, there are less
than a dozen. Only one of them ever presents his own work there,
and never the final form.
> The internet has some advantages. In particular, it is more
> up-to-date, contains more information - and is significantly
> easier to search than any other publishing medium.
>
> Also it is interactive in real time. If you have a question, you
> can ask it and get an answer back in a reasonable space of time.
>
> With peer reviewed journals there's often a turn around of months -
> making such interaction impractical.
>
Before the internet that problem was solved (at least in physics
where I know what was going on) by mailing mimeographed copies of
submitted manuscripts to all your friends and all the departments
where interesting work in that subfield was being done. Many
people read these preprints and largely ignored the published
versions. The preprints never took over from the journals and
never (with very rare exceptions) counted toward priority or
credit for doing good work. The credit came from the refereed,
published work that hardly anyone actually read but everyone
scanned to see what had made it to the journals. The preprints
were read because everyone knew they were designed to satisfy
referees and knew who's preprints to read. It was actually
harder for a newcomer to make an impact through the preprint
system than through the journals. Getting published in a
prestigious journal got your name noticed so that your preprints
would be read.
> I don't think professionals as a class are blind to these advantages -
> and I don't think its correct to say that they fail to take advantage
> of them.
>
They are also not blind to the low signal to noise ratio. It is
much easier to overcome that elsewhere.
> Even before the internet, much interaction between scientists was
> *not* in the peer reviewed literature. Check the letters of
> Charles Darwin - for example.
>
The corresponding medium is EMail, not usenet. EMail has been
used a lot since even before there was an internet proper.
>
>>If nothing else, they don't have time to read
>>everything and the refereeing processes weeds out most of the
>>nonsense while losing very little of the valuable stuff. Very
>>rarely some valuable stuff is lost, but the amount of work
>>required to find it elsewhere when it doesn't reach the standard
>>literature is impossible to undertake.
>
>
> Fortunately, filtering out irrelevant chaff can be done passably well
> dynamically by computer programs - which can track references to the
> document in question.
>
But computers cannot filter nearly as well as referees can.
Referees can even filter out weak contributions from normally
sensible people, or even better can induce people to do a better
job on their writeup than they would do otherwise. The
refereeing process wastes the time of 1-3 people, not hundreds.
> No doubt there will remain a market for "closed" publishing -
> and pay-per-view documents filtered by humans - for some time -
> but basically, I expect the internet to rip the guts out of
> the business - and expect that most of the remaining material
> fitting this description will wind up being funded by
> advertising - not sales of the information itself.
>
I think that some form of noncharge internet publishing ought to
be used, but I can't see how to get there. Physics at least has
a "preprint" archive for articles that have been or will be
submitted to refereed journals, and I hope that the archive will
somehow evolve to a more open form of publication. Whatever
shows up, however, will have to include refereeing in some form
or another if it is to drive the print journals out of business.
The physics archive, by the way, only takes papers from authors
with recognized institutional address or who have been certified
as legitimate by some other means. It is easier for new people
not at universities or the like to get published in print than to
get into the archive, at least in principle.
One thing that could evolve easily but I hope will not replace
print journals would be volunteers listing on the internet the
papers in the preprint archive that they find interesting enough
to recommend reading. Such a process would not improve the
papers any and would concentrate the power of the referees into
even fewer hands.
> It will become increasingly difficult to sell mere
> information - because of the ease with which it
> can be copied and redistributed free of charge.
Open archives of older journal issues are coming. I don't think
they solve the worst problems -- almost anyone can eventually get
to a physical library once at least every couple of months after
all -- but they may provide a way station to something more
nearly ideal. They are certainly more convenient.
EKurtz
news:<cn02bu$2c6b$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>...
>
>> If the Peer review process had worked
>> correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
>> evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
>> with many other misused oversimplified models.
"Name And Address Supplied" wrote
> I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
Actually, Hamilton's paper was rejected by the editor's of Nature:
QUOTE
[William Hamilton's] first, and now, landmark paper was rejected by
Nature. Hamilton recalls, "I received the editor's decision almost by
return of post. In about three lines he regretted that he had no space
for my manuscript and suggested that, it might be more appropriate to
a `psychological or sociological' journal". Throughout his career
Hamilton had trouble publishing his papers in peer-reviewed journals,
underscoring the shortcomings of the peer-review system.
END QUOTE
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Apr2001/Apr2001p4-5.html
Obviously, problems with the peer-review system are separate from the
problem of editorial rejection.
> Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> current social evolutionary thought.
>
> But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
> 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,
I would expect the editors to reject a submission from a contributor whose
mathematical abilities are those of a C-grade high-school student, and who
manages to misconstrue the most elementary principles of evolutionary
biology.
Jim McGinn
> > If the Peer review process had worked
> > correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> > evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> > with many other misused oversimplified models.
>
> I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
Uh huh.
> Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> current social evolutionary thought.
You are avoiding the issue.
> But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> in this field, are wrong.
This is comical. Hamilton's arguement achieves nothing
but to produce enough confusion that the "experts" cannot
ever be shown to be wrong.
> 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.
> 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.
Jim
Name And Address Supplied
> "Name And Address Supplied" <name_and_add...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
> >
> The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is his take on
> Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard, because he
> is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
what a peer review process is for.
If today's independent researcher wishes to publish a book outside of
the peer review process (a la Darwin) then there is nothing to stop
them doing that. If they want to publish in obscure journals with zero
or poor peer-review (a la Mendel) then they can do that also.
The standards for the peer reviewed literature are somewhat higher,
and I am confident that both of these historical figures could put the
appropriate manuscript together if required. If I am writing an essay
for a popular magazine, I'll possibly relax the level of rigour I
would require to get published in a scientific journal. The essay
might go on to change the world. And you could argue that I wouldn't
have got it through the peer review process. However, given that the
ideas are good enough, an appropriately written version of the essay
could have done. Do you see?
> > 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.
> >
> It was probably rejected in short order.
> What I find interesting is that
> John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae system but with
> himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary conditioning.
Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
academic rigour that normally warrants this.
Name And Address Supplied
You have to bear in mind that the manuscript that he sent to Nature
was enormous - it later appeared as two consecutive and substantial
papers in JTB. Nature really wasn't the appropriate place for this
paper.
There are two main reasons why Hamilton struggled with the peer review
process. One is that he seems to have been obsessed with getting
published in Nature, and the manuscripts he submitted there were
really not suitable for Nature. Secondly, while he clearly had a very
good intuitive understanding of the important concepts, he wasn't the
best at communicating these. This follows largely from the first
reason - by focussing on certain top journals that demand short
papers, his papers are necessarily terse to the point of obscurity.
For example, in his 1967 paper in Science, his conceptual breakthrough
regarding the equivalence of kin selection and group selection is
consigned to one of around 50 footnotes!
>
> > Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> > reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> > slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> > current social evolutionary thought.
> >
> > But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> > in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> > against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
> > 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,
>
> I would expect the editors to reject a submission from a contributor whose
> mathematical abilities are those of a C-grade high-school student, and who
> manages to misconstrue the most elementary principles of evolutionary
> biology.
Right - and that's what we want, surely?
John Edser
Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> > JE:-
> > If the Peer review process had worked
> > correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> > evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> > with many other misused oversimplified models.
> NAS:-
> I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
JE:-
I am only proposing a simple "IF THEN" deductive
proposition. I am allowed to do so in a free
county. IF Hamilton's rule does contain a
basic error i.e. only constitutes an absurdity,
THEN the current peer review process has been
proven to have failed.
My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
is in two distinct parts:
1) Proof of a basic error.
2) An attempt to remove it.
Please note that 2 remains independent of 1,
i.e. any attempt by myself (or others) to remove
Hamilton's error has no bearing on the existence
of a proven error.
Hamilton's rule:
rb>c ...(1)
(1) Not a single constant is represented within
the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
sciences any rational mathematical expression must
refer back to at least one constant term in order
to make any sense. Hamilton's rule remains
employed as a STAND ALONE fitness
accounting device that does not refer back
to any constant term to provide this missing
frame of reference. As an example, E=Mc^2
just becomes meaningless when the constant c is
oversimplified to become yet another variable.
Only the constant c (maximum velocity of the
speed of light in a vacuum) provides a frame
of reference for Einstein's famous equation.
Mathematical expressions that do not include
at least one constant term are just over simplified
models which are absolutely required to refer back
to a logic that does contain at least one constant term
in order to represent a rational proposition.
Hamilton's Rule, as it has been employed
for over 50 years is not rational.
(2) Because Hamilton's rule is logical but
not rational it can only measure a relative
difference between rb and c. It is impossible
to deduce the total fitness of the actor from
only this difference. Note that a baseline
fitness (m) has been absolutely deleted from the
rule, i.e. included on both sides of the inequality
and deleted. Without the total fitness of the actor
included within the rule no frame of
reference for a rational fitness measure can
exist. The first step towards obtaining this missing
total is putting all of the deleted baseline fitness m,
back into Hamilton's rule.
A frame of reference is absolutely required
for any rule to be able to measure when OFA can
evolve. None exist in Hamilton's rule. The net
result is that the sign of c (which alone is
used to diagnose OFA from OFM its logical
contradiction) remains arbitrary. This
has been confirmed by Dr Bob O'Hara who claims
to be a professional in the field. His only
comment was, the rule was never designed to be used
to support OFA after group selection failed
to be able to do so. Indeed. However, that
is the only use of the rule.
(3) With only a relative measure to go by,
just a single case exists within the rule
that can prove OFA:-
rb > cmax
The value cmax represents the maximal cost c
to the actor. This cost represents a constant
(not just a variable) because it is
the maximum fitness cost of supplying b.
This cost is equivalent to the total organism
fitness of that actor. When cmax is paid nothing
is left over for the actor to reproduce with
so the actor remains fertile
but only has resources left to reproduce zero
offspring. All reproductive resources
have been handed over as b units of fitness
within the rule. Only this one case is proof
of OFA within Hamilton's otherwise arbitrary rule
because only this one case includes ALL the
fitness of the actor. Every other case MAY OR MAY
NOT be OFA. No way exists to differentiate
OFA from its contradiction, OFM in any of these
other cases via the rule.
(4) If K is the missing total fitness of the
actor where K = cmax, then OFA can only
proven when:
rb > K
Clearly, m (an absolutely deleted baseline
fitness) cannot be > K where c+m = K if
Hamilton's fitness books are to balance.
If c+m < K then some fitness has not been
accounted for within Hamilton's fitness accounting
rule and if c+m>K then fitness has only been
added from nowhere that cannot be accounted
for via the rule.
Since:
K = c+m
For OFA to be proven:
rb > K
Substituting (c+m) for K:
rb > c+m
rb-c > m
CONCLUSION:
Hamilton's Rule:
rb-c > 0
remains in error by the large amount, m.
The entirely missing variable m constitutes most
of the representative fitness of the actor.
Consequently, a selfish gene can now be
argued to be selected via a relative gain
at just an absolute (total) fitness cost.
Such an event is just an absurdity.
This absurdity allows both Hamilton's
selfish gene and an altruistic in fitness
body to evolve to mutual extinction. Any
rational evolutionary theory cannot allow
extinction to be selected FOR.
> NAS:-
> Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> current social evolutionary thought.
JE:-
It is always irrational to propose a
rule that suggests x is true when
the condition A>B is met if
A and B are only variables.
Suppose that A and B are
company profits such that A>B
represents a proposed investment
rule that measures when to invest
in A. Unless A and B are constants,
e.g. end of financial year
totals, the rule is not rational.
Investing in a company A instead
of B only because A is ahead
of B in sub total profits, i.e.
profits measured at just any moment
in time, does not constitute a
rational comparison of these
two companies. Completed totals over
time represent competing constants
which are an essential basic for rational
thinking.
A financial year time period
is only a convention. However,
business could not operate without
it. Note that the time period necessary
to complete one Darwinian fitness
total is NOT just a convention. I have
provided a definition of total Darwinian
fitness and demonstrated
how classic Darwinism always implied
this exact fitness total. I have outlined
an experimental test (not just a model) to
refute this concept satisfying a
minimal Popperian standard for the
sciences. I wish I could say the
same about Neo Darwinism.
I have shown that total
Darwinian fitness represents an
epistatic gene fitness where all
epistasis has been artificially deleted
from Hamilton's rule because of Fisher's
dictum of what is proposed to be
heritable within population genetics.
I have provided an amended rule where
epistasis (e) is now included:
r^eb > c
If selfish genes attempt to sexually
selectively mate with the same genome
e.g. using Dawkins "Green Beard" marker
gene, then Hamilton's rule becomes inoperable
because the number of recipients required increases
geometrically as e increases. Thus Hamilton's
rule is hopelessly restricted to random mating.
I have also pointed out that C. H. Waddington
altered Haldane's basic population genetics
equations to include an extra variable:
developed in x. Waddington's revision allowed
a token for heritable gene fitness epistasis
to now exist within Haldane's basic population
genetics equations. Waddington's revision
remains ignored even after Haldane's Dilemma
was resolved via the human genome size.
Our tiny genome refuted Fisher's
proposition of what is heritable.
In short, deleted epistasis
(and pleiotropic effects: please refer
to the post re: slime mould slug formation)
which alone allows Hamilton's independent gene
level of selection only constituted a simplified
model misuse.
I find it interesting that NAS, who
introduced the excellent term "maximand" to
this discussion freely admits that gene
centric Neo Darwinism (typified by
Hamilton's rule) does not have a
a proposed maximand fitness (refutable or
otherwise). OTOH I have provided a refutable
Darwinian fitness maximand and an experiment
required to refute it. This provides proof that
Hamiltonian logic is just an over simplification
of Darwinian logic where the Darwinian maximand
which determines all evolutionary theory to this
day, has been deleted for just Neo Darwinian
modelling convenience.
_____________________________________________
I am very happy to debate any of the points
I have listed above as long as all questions are
answered and not evaded (by both myself and
others).
I welcome any refutation of my argument because
it IS refutable. Please note: the Neo Darwinian
proposition remains NON refutable. Not only
that, the entire process of refutation has
been thrown out by gene centric Neo Darwinism.
The Popperian umpire has been allowed to be shot
inviting Neo Darwinists to conveniently delegate
themselves to referee competing
ideas while competition has becomes
restricted to just their own peer
review. It is called cultural group selection.
_____________________________________________
> NAS:-
> But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
> against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
JE:-
Dr Hoelzer advised me that such a "negative"
paper is unlikely to be acceptable.
> NAS:-
> 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.
JE:-
I am preparing a paper that is not based on
just a negative critique of Hamilton's rule.
However it does include an evaluation of Hamilton's
basic error: deleting the fitness total of
the actor from the rule allowing just an
arbitrary fitness accounting device to
incorrectly determine when OFA can or
cannot evolve within nature.
I have posted for over 4 years that simplified
models have been consistently misused within
Neo Darwinism. Discussion here has done nothing
to remove my fear this has indeed, been the case.
In almost all cases the critical questions asked
of the professional Neo Darwinists that post here
have been evaded. Evasion speaks for itself.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Name And Address Supplied
> name_and_add...@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote
>
> > > If the Peer review process had worked
> > > correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> > > evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> > > with many other misused oversimplified models.
> >
> > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> > Well, I have in the past invested some of my time into examining your
> > reasons for this crucial assumption, and was not persuaded in the
> > slightest. What I saw was gross mischaracterisation and ignorance of
> > current social evolutionary thought.
>
> You are avoiding the issue.
I'm done with that issue. I'm addressing this new issue, the subject
of this newsgroup thread.
> > But say (for the sake of argument) that I, and the rest of the experts
> > in this field, are wrong.
>
> This is comical. Hamilton's arguement achieves nothing
> but to produce enough confusion that the "experts" cannot
> ever be shown to be wrong.
Indeed, there is alot of confusion surrounding Hamilton's arguments,
even among evolutionary biologists. 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. 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
Malcolm
>
> Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
> because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
> what a peer review process is for.
>
physics, will get their share of crank submissions. However filtering out
these people isn't the main purpose of peer review. A lot of journals reject
about half of their submissions, and these are perfectly sober and serious
papers from qualified academics, but for some reason sub-standard. A paper
that doesn't report significant results is much more likely to be rejected
than one with a positive finding. A paper that repeats a previous
experiement with a different but related species (co-operative grooming in
mice instead of in rats) is likely to be rejected. A paper that tries a
technically difficult observation, like taking a census of bats in a natural
cave, is likely to be rejected.
>
> If today's independent researcher wishes to publish a book outside of
> the peer review process (a la Darwin) then there is nothing to stop
> them doing that. If they want to publish in obscure journals with zero
> or poor peer-review (a la Mendel) then they can do that also.
>
journals are cited in other peer-reviewed publications. So the
self-publishing eccentric is still effectively frozen out of the discourse.
>
> The standards for the peer reviewed literature are somewhat higher,
> and I am confident that both of these historical figures could put the
> appropriate manuscript together if required.
>
papers are pretty boring and routine and the content would quickly be
blue-pencilled by the editor of Titbits. OTOH if you can discover a species
of hobbits then Titbits is interested.
>
> If I am writing an essay for a popular magazine, I'll possibly relax the
level of
> rigour I would require to get published in a scientific journal. The essay
> might go on to change the world. And you could argue that I wouldn't
> have got it through the peer review process. However, given that the
> ideas are good enough, an appropriately written version of the essay
> could have done. Do you see?
>
far-fetched ideas, for instance the theory that water has a memory for
substances once dissolved in it probably shouldn't have been published by
Nature. However if they had rejected the paper and it had turned out to be
correct, the damage would have been immense.
The problem is that an important idea and a crank idea look superficially
similar, because the crank always thinks that his theory is the one that
will totally revolutionise the field. When you add the fact that important
ideas frequently come from people outside the hierarchy (neither Darwin,
Einstein, Mendel or Crick and Watson had doctorates when they published
their seminal papers), it is not surprising that mistakes are frequently
made.
Whether your important essay, appropriately referenced and written in the
passive voice, would make it into a journal is an open question. As well as
performing the ostensible academic function, the journal also performs a
social function, which is to protect the interests of those who control it.
As evolutionary biologists we would be very surprised if it were otherwise.
>
> Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> academic rigour that normally warrants this.
>
Of course. John's argument is largely theoretical and not backed up by
empirical observations. This doesn't mean that it is wrong, but it does mean
that the peer reviewer cannot say "Here's a body of data that deserves
publication".
I suspect that if he could cast his argument in mathematical terms and get
it to a mathematican, then, if sound, it would see the light of day.
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler wrote:
> > Maurice Barnhill <m...@udel.edu> wrote or quoted:
> >>There is no point in going through the effort of writing up your
> >>ideas understandably unless you want to convince someone that the
> >>idea is correct or at least clever. Who do you want to convince?
> >> The logical ultimate target is the people who have thought most
> >>carefully about the general area of knowledge your idea
> >>addresses. These people are in current times mostly (although
> >>not entirely) professionals, and professionals are very, very
> >>unlikely to pay attention to anything not in the refereed
> >>literature.
> >
> > In my experience, this is completely untrue. I can think of
> > numerous highly talented individuals in their fields who have
> > participated in usenet in their time.
>
> There are a few here, but how many? Compare that to the number
> who read any decent journal on evolution.
You seem to be comparing readers with authors. Surely not a fair
comparison: the readers generally outnumber the authors.
Also, s.b.e. may not be the idea group for this comparison. It
is moderated - and has a substantial posting delay - and thus it
is difficult to hold a conversation in real time here. Other groups
attract greater proportions of experts. sci.crypt and
comp.compression spring to mind.
> > I don't think professionals as a class are blind to these advantages -
> > and I don't think its correct to say that they fail to take advantage
> > of them.
>
> They are also not blind to the low signal to noise ratio. It is
> much easier to overcome that elsewhere.
Often, I find it harder to find things I'm interested in in
conventional journals. They typically lack decent search facilities -
and searching for what you are interested in is often critical.
> > Even before the internet, much interaction between scientists was
> > *not* in the peer reviewed literature. Check the letters of
> > Charles Darwin - for example.
>
> The corresponding medium is EMail, not usenet. EMail has been
> used a lot since even before there was an internet proper.
If I want feedback about a theory, I use usenet - not email.
With email, I have to mail everybody I want feedback from -
and emails which request responses can be a bit intrusive.
Usenet is much better for that sort of thing - nobody is
obliged to reply, and many people get to look at your theory.
> >>If nothing else, they don't have time to read
> >>everything and the refereeing processes weeds out most of the
> >>nonsense while losing very little of the valuable stuff. Very
> >>rarely some valuable stuff is lost, but the amount of work
> >>required to find it elsewhere when it doesn't reach the standard
> >>literature is impossible to undertake.
> >
> > Fortunately, filtering out irrelevant chaff can be done passably well
> > dynamically by computer programs - which can track references to the
> > document in question.
>
> But computers cannot filter nearly as well as referees can.
> Referees can even filter out weak contributions from normally
> sensible people, or even better can induce people to do a better
> job on their writeup than they would do otherwise. The
> refereeing process wastes the time of 1-3 people, not hundreds.
Material is reviewed on usenet as well. You get to see who
is critical of the theory - and often their reasoning about why
it is wrong.
Reviewers can't suppress publication of the original messages though.
That's a very positive thing - it means nobody gets censored.
Jim McGinn
No, the reason there's a lot of confusion is because the arguments
don't make sense. It's that simple.
> Naturally, there is going to be inconsistency. 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.
It's nonsense. Anybody that tells you differently doesn't
know what they are talking about.
>
> > > 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.
I have. It's nonsense.
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.
>
> > > 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.
I've already said what I have to say.
Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
Jim
Anon.
>
>>"Name And Address Supplied" <name_and_add...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
>>>based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
>>>it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
>>>peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
>>>something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
>>>
>>
>>The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is his take on
>>Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard, because he
>>is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
>
>
> Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
> because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
> what a peer review process is for.
>
Whilst NAS is right, I do not think that all is lost for the amateur.
As I see it, a non-specialist will face two issues. The first is that
their ideas might be demostrably stupid (i.e. they are cranks). The
second is that they do not know how to write a scientific paper in a way
that is acceptable. There are conventions that are observed (such as
the Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion structure), which are
considered important. It would be unfortunate if a paper were rejected
because it did not conform to this standard. However, all is not lost.
There are several books about scientific writing, so I would advise
that these are consulted.
I suspect that a manuscript with a good idea from a non-specialist might
be treated with some sympathy if it was clear that the author had tried
to get the format right. Of course, if the ideas are nuts, then no
amount of skill in writing will help: you just have to make sure you
have the right co-authors (e.g. W.D. Hamilton would be a good one to
try. You just have to get his address right).
Bob
--
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 51400
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
John Edser
name_and_add...@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
> > It was probably rejected in short order.
> > What I find interesting is that
> > John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae
> > system but with
> > himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary
> conditioning.
> NAS:-
> Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> academic rigour that normally warrants this.
JE:-
NAS's conclusions re: myself are not only unwarranted they
are childish. If he thinks that theoretical work does
not require dedication and hard work then NAS has no idea
about what he is talking about. Given such a high level of
prejudice displayed by NAS et al who purport to be evolutionary
theory professionals and the level of evasion and indifference
shown by most of the other Neo Darwinists that post here,
it comes as no surprise to me and many others
that Darwin left debate to others like Huxley
mostly concentrating on his own book and private
research.
The historical fact that Mendel could only be
published in an obscure journal means an obscure sbe
peer reviewed and electronically published journal
has to be a good thing. Imagine how much the retardation
of the biological sciences would have suffered if Mendel
did not even have an obscure journal to publish his work!
As it stands, science had to wait for another generation.
Typically, the dominant males have to die off before
cultural change is allowed. This is why Darwinists can reason
death to be an adaptation within a highly fitness mutualised
species like our own.
How many others who had something worthwhile to contribute
to scientific debate were locked out by today's non transparent
and non democratic peer review process? If this had not
been the case would we now have a cure for say, cancer?
The fact that Hamilton's original paper was rejected by
the peer review process and the admittance by NAS that
only confusion reigns among biologist re: what Hamilton's
ideas actually mean confirms the fact that
epistemological confusion abounds within evolutionary
theory concerning the _correct_ use of mathematical
models within a science of biology. I have attempted
to raise this thorny issue on many different occasions. It
has always been evaded. Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper
never even existed, something like the way Stalin acted as
if Mendel had never existed. It seems clear to me
that RN's point re: people have status positions to protect
against "outsiders" who can only pose a threat to them, is
correct. However, science does not have "outsiders", it only
deals in testable ideas. The only outsiders that science
allows are non testable ideas. Neo Darwinism in general and
Hamilton in particular, remain non testable theories of nature.
They can only be tested to non verification which is not
definitive. No wonder Neo Darwinists have decided to throw
out Karl Popper.
The peer review process is supposed to advance and not
retard the evolution of the sciences. Instead, it
appears it can be freely employed to advance the power and
status of some group selected individuals against the
interests of other individuals and thus science in
general.
My Regards,
John Edser
Jim McGinn wrote:-
> > NAS:-
> > 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.
> JMcG:-
> I've already said what I have to say.
> Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
JE:-
These differences could be cleared up
if more formal publications were to be
reviewed within sbe. Either we are "trashers
of Hamilton's Rule" OR Hamilton's rule is
just trash. This proposition is entirely
rational because it can be tested to
refutation simply because these predictions
remain self exclusive.
Jim and I differ in basics as to why Hamilton's
reasoning remains in error. What I would
like to ask Jim is, does he support
a 100% _transparent_ and _democratic_
peer review process being attempted within
sbe for the electronic publication of
sbe peer reviewed papers? I would
welcome any paper being submitted to
such a process by Jim and hopefully many
others here. My argument remains: there is
nothing for SCIENCE to lose but everything
for science to gain by evolving sbe to another,
_optional_ level of publication. It is also rather
obvious that NAS and many others here that do
not support sbe peer reviewed papers, feel they
have everything to lose and nothing to gain
if this process became a reality. This is
because they now suffer the risk that
it may be more FORMALLY proven that their
interpretation of the rule has been incorrect
for over 50 years. Short term self interest
predicts that NAS et al will move heaven and
earth to stop sbe reviewed papers becoming
a reality to reduce this risk to themselves.
I predict this will remain the case even
after it is carefully explained to them
that when science loses WE ALL LOSE. The
irony is, Hamilton's logic suffers from
exactly the same irrational syndrome: a
relative gain for just an absolute loss.
William Morse
> jimm...@yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) wrote in message
> news:<cn99ek$26ml$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>...
>> name_and_add...@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
>> wrote
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, and the consensus result of the peer review is
that they are both wrong and Hamilton is right.
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 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 in a post-publishing-peer-
reviewed instead of a pre-publishing-peer-reviewed setting. Neither has
been successful. 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.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Joachim Dagg
rejected, only hypotheses can? if a hypothesis that has been derived
from a theory is being rejected, this does not mean that the theory is
thrown out along with it. usually the hypothesis has been derived on
wrong assumption and these are then changed. science clings to its
theories until better ones come along. the only way to "remove"
hamilton's rule, then, is to propose a _better_ theory meaning one
that can explain facts that hamilton's rule fails to explain.
John Edser
"Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > NAS:-
> > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
> M:-
> The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is
> his take on
> Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard,
> because he
> is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
JE:-
I have been advised by Dr Hoelzer that a publication
based mainly on a negative critique of Hamilton's
rule would be unlikely to be accepted for publication.
Given the response and consistent evasion of most of
the purported professional Neo Darwinists that post here,
this comes at no surprise to me. Until a peer review process
becomes 100% _transparent_ and _democratic_ the powers
that be, when they make a basic error, can always
invoke group selection to attempt to cover it up.
>snip<
> > M:-
> > 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.
> NAS:-
> It was probably rejected in short order. What I find interesting is that
> John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae system but with
> himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary conditioning.
JE:-
I did not just propose a peer review system for
sbe, I proposed an experimental peer review process
that is both _transparent_ and _democratic being
_tested_ within sbe. My proposition is that
without 100% peer review transparency
peer review can become hijacked by the powers
of cultural group selection to the detriment of the
sciences.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Name And Address Supplied
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> > "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cn997i$2672$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> >
> >>"Name And Address Supplied" <name_and_add...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >>>I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> >>>based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> >>>it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> >>>peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> >>>something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is his take on
> >>Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard, because he
> >>is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
> >
> >
> > Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
> > because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
> > what a peer review process is for.
> >
>
> Whilst NAS is right, I do not think that all is lost for the amateur.
> As I see it, a non-specialist will face two issues. The first is that
> their ideas might be demostrably stupid (i.e. they are cranks). The
> second is that they do not know how to write a scientific paper in a way
> that is acceptable. There are conventions that are observed (such as
> the Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion structure), which are
> considered important. It would be unfortunate if a paper were rejected
> because it did not conform to this standard. However, all is not lost.
> There are several books about scientific writing, so I would advise
> that these are consulted.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't believe that the amateur is
intrinsically frozen out of the peer review process. I think that
certain amateurs are cranks, and they are frozen out because the peer
review process is doing exactly what is there to do - filter out the
good from the bad. I agree wholeheartedly with what you have just
said.
> I suspect that a manuscript with a good idea from a non-specialist might
> be treated with some sympathy if it was clear that the author had tried
> to get the format right. Of course, if the ideas are nuts, then no
> amount of skill in writing will help:
Exactly. And surely this isn't a failing of the peer review system?
> you just have to make sure you
> have the right co-authors (e.g. W.D. Hamilton would be a good one to
> try. You just have to get his address right).
Well, that could be difficult.
John Edser
> > NAS:-
> > If today's independent researcher wishes to publish a book outside of
> > the peer review process (a la Darwin) then there is nothing to stop
> > them doing that. If they want to publish in obscure journals with zero
> > or poor peer-review (a la Mendel) then they can do that also.
> M:-
> The problem is that the convention is developing that only peer-reviewed
> journals are cited in other peer-reviewed publications. So the
> self-publishing eccentric is still effectively frozen out of the
> discourse.
JE:-
Evolutionary theory has a logic that
describes this process: group selection.
Perhaps NAS would like to comment on it.
> > NAS:-
> > Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> > peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> > academic rigour that normally warrants this.
> M:-
> Of course. John's argument is largely theoretical and not backed up by
> empirical observations.
JE:-
Yes, my argument is evolutionary theoretical
(this is an evolutionary theory discussion group!)
but it IS backed up by empirical observation.
The irony is the Neo Darwinian argument
has NOT been backed up by observation.
Not one single independent genomic gene fitness
has ever been documented within nature where
such an observation is absolutely required
to turn gene centric heuristics into
non never never land, biology.
OTOH, countless observations of Darwinian
fertile organism centric observations of
nature have been documented. Not a single
instance of organism fitness altruism (OFA) has
been documented where fertile organism
fitness mutualism (OFM, its contesting causative
theory opposite) cannot explain the same
observations. The reason this is so is because
the accounting device used to separate OFA
from OFM, Hamilton's rule, remains faulty. Because
the total fitness of the actor is not included
100% of all measurement made by the rule remain
relative. This being the case, the rule cannot
distinguish between a fitness debit and fitness
credit. Did anybody have shares in Enron?
Please note only I have porvided:
1) A definition of absolute Darwinian
fitness which can be measured within nature.
2) A experiment (NOT just a model) to test
this key concept to refutation.
3) My fitness logic remains self consistent,
measureable and entirely refutable.
OTOH: Neo Darwinians have falied in
ALL of the above.
> M
> I suspect that if he could cast his argument in mathematical terms and get
> it to a mathematican, then, if sound, it would see the light of day.
JE:-
I am open to any mathematical help
Re: putting the total fitness of the
actor back into Hamilton's Rule. I
am also open to contesting arguments
that suggest that just a relative
difference between rb and c is sufficient
to separate OFA from OFM using Hamilton's
Rule. My argument remains, until proven
otherwise: it is NOT sufficient where
this can easily be proven.
John Edser
>EKurtz" <NoJ...@ForgetIt.com> wrote:
> EK:-
> I would expect the editors to reject a submission from a
> contributor whose
> mathematical abilities are those of a C-grade high-school
> student, and who
> manages to misconstrue the most elementary principles of evolutionary
> biology.
JE:-
Since EK's negative comment is obviously
meant for myself (JE), I would ask
EK to back it up by providing examples
or apologise. I would also like to point
out that just _mathematical_ errors, while lamentable
are easily rectified. What is utterly disastrous
and cannot be rectified without major surgery
is the incorrect application of mathematics to
evolutionary theory. The misuse of mathematically
over simplified models to contest the theory
from which they were simplified is a total
disaster for the biological sciences. Perhaps
EK might like to enlighten sbe readers as to
his opinion re: this much more critical matter.
Name And Address Supplied
> name_and_add...@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied)
>
> > > It was probably rejected in short order.
> > > What I find interesting is that
> > > John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae
> > > system but with
> > > himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary
> > conditioning.
>
> > NAS:-
> > Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> > peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> > academic rigour that normally warrants this.
>
> JE:-
> NAS's conclusions re: myself are not only unwarranted they
> are childish. If he thinks that theoretical work does
> not require dedication and hard work then NAS has no idea
> about what he is talking about.
On the contrary, I think that *good* theoretical work does require
dedication and hard work. And there is nothing in the peer review
system which will present such good work being published. Especially
when you submit to Journal of *Theoretical* Biology, as I suggested.
> Given such a high level of
> prejudice displayed by NAS et al who purport to be evolutionary
> theory professionals and the level of evasion and indifference
> shown by most of the other Neo Darwinists that post here,
> it comes as no surprise to me and many others
> that Darwin left debate to others like Huxley
> mostly concentrating on his own book and private
> research.
Private research, which he then communicated eloquently to his peers.
> The historical fact that Mendel could only be
> published in an obscure journal means an obscure sbe
> peer reviewed and electronically published journal
> has to be a good thing.
Did Mendel attempt to get published in a more appropriate,
peer-reviewed journal?
> Imagine how much the retardation
> of the biological sciences would have suffered if Mendel
> did not even have an obscure journal to publish his work!
Actually, his ideas were independently formulated by several other
researchers, who only afterwards discovered his precedent. So I
imagine the retardation of the biological sciences would have been
close to nil.
> As it stands, science had to wait for another generation.
> Typically, the dominant males have to die off before
> cultural change is allowed. This is why Darwinists can reason
> death to be an adaptation within a highly fitness mutualised
> species like our own.
Yawn.
> How many others who had something worthwhile to contribute
> to scientific debate were locked out by today's non transparent
> and non democratic peer review process? If this had not
> been the case would we now have a cure for say, cancer?
I doubt it. There's nothing stopping you from writing a letter into
New Scientist if you feel you have a cure for cancer which you want to
make public by means other than through peer review.
> The fact that Hamilton's original paper was rejected by
> the peer review process and the admittance by NAS that
> only confusion reigns among biologist re: what Hamilton's
> ideas actually mean confirms the fact that
> epistemological confusion abounds within evolutionary
> theory concerning the _correct_ use of mathematical
> models within a science of biology. I have attempted
> to raise this thorny issue on many different occasions. It
> has always been evaded. Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper
> never even existed, something like the way Stalin acted as
> if Mendel had never existed. It seems clear to me
> that RN's point re: people have status positions to protect
> against "outsiders" who can only pose a threat to them, is
> correct. However, science does not have "outsiders", it only
> deals in testable ideas. The only outsiders that science
> allows are non testable ideas. Neo Darwinism in general and
> Hamilton in particular, remain non testable theories of nature.
> They can only be tested to non verification which is not
> definitive. No wonder Neo Darwinists have decided to throw
> out Karl Popper.
John, I've read Popper, and I don't see how you are reaching this
conclusion.
> The peer review process is supposed to advance and not
> retard the evolution of the sciences. Instead, it
> appears it can be freely employed to advance the power and
> status of some group selected individuals against the
> interests of other individuals and thus science in
> general.
Appearances can be deceptive. Especially when the observer is a crank,
who wishes to escape their personal feelings of failure by fantasising
about a monolithic corrupt and conspiring power structure which is out
to get him. Have you actually interacted with academics, John? In my
experience, we simply don't have the organisational skills to run such
a process.
John Edser
Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:
> Material is reviewed on usenet as well. You get to see who
> is critical of the theory - and often their reasoning about why
> it is wrong.
> Reviewers can't suppress publication of the original messages though.
> That's a very positive thing - it means nobody gets censored.
JE:-
Peer review transparency does not exist at the moment.
If usenet discussion was employed by referee's to discuss
and decide the worth of a paper for publication where
the author of the paper remained anonymous and the
board of review's decision remained final, then political
manipulation, if any, would become transparent. Also,
the people involved and the general public would be
able appraise the process. Peer review is something like
a Parliament where the decision process must be transparent.
Usnet in general and sbe in particular are well placed
to experiment with this concept. This is why I cannot
understand your neutrality re: optional sbe electronically
published peer reviewed papers.
Name And Address Supplied
> > Indeed, there is alot of confusion surrounding Hamilton's arguments,
> > even among evolutionary biologists. 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.
>
> No, the reason there's a lot of confusion is because the arguments
> don't make sense. It's that simple.
Simple for you to assert, maybe.
> > Naturally, there is going to be inconsistency. 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.
>
> It's nonsense. Anybody that tells you differently doesn't
> know what they are talking about.
Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement. It is pointless to
argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
> > > > 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.
>
> I have. It's nonsense.
I'm struggling to understand in what sense a mathematical fact can be
described as nonsense.
> 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.
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> I've already said what I have to say.
Science isn't just about understanding, it is about communicating. To
unweave your argument from the tortuous archives of sbe is, quite
frankly, not worth my time. If you are really interested in science,
you will submit an appropriate manuscript outlining your ideas to a
peer reviewed journal. Once you have a paper in print, I'll know that
it's worth looking at.
> Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
Sorry, but I don't recall any justification given for that assertion.
John Edser
"Anon." <bob....@NOSPAM.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >> M:-
> >>The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is
> >>his take on
> >>Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it
> >>heard, because he
> >>is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
> > NAS:-
> > Right, a lot of people are 'frozen out' of the publication process,
> > because they are cranks who produce bad manuscripts. This is exactly
> > what a peer review process is for.
> BOH:-
> Whilst NAS is right, I do not think that all is lost for the amateur.
> As I see it, a non-specialist will face two issues. The first is that
> their ideas might be demostrably stupid (i.e. they are cranks).
JE:-
The term "crank" is just an in-group derogatory
term that has no place and absolutely no meaning
within a RATIONAL discussion. When it is used as
a political weapon it says more about the values
of the people and the group they represent than
it says about the person it is used against.
This argument never even occurs to biased individuals
who mostly always, employ such a term.
Even W.D. Hamilton was considered a crank towards the
end of his life. Letters by Hamilton to Science were
rejected by the journal, amid accusations by Hamilton
that the establishment were ranging against his theory
that AIDS was caused by a deficient polio vaccine
developed in Africa and allegedly forcibly
tested on a large number of Africans. Suddenly,
Hamilton was on the "outside" as a self protective
establishment closed ranks to protect their own
intellectual tribe. The net result may be that a
treatment for AIDS was delayed by such a group
selective act by an establishment peer review process.
It never occurs to any establishment that their
ideas may be "stupid" until its is too late.
This is because our psychology is mostly
tribally based where tribal protection is always the
first line of defence for individual protection within
a highly fitness mutualised species like our own. The
evolution of human culture has demonstrated time and
time again that powerful establishments get it wrong.
This also applies to the history of science. Most of
the major changes that have enabled science to
evolve to where it is today have been prompted one
way or another, by those outside of the square.
Darwin, Einstein and Mendel were all, outside of
the peer review square at the time they developed
and formulated their ideas. We can have
no idea about many others existed that were
forever lost to science. All we can show is that
man had to reinvent fire several times, i.e.
cultural evolution unlike organic evolution,
can evolve backwards.
When the mutationist
replaced the selectionists after the discovery
of the process of genetic mutation by Muller
more was lost than was gained by Mullers discovery!
The establishment was hopelessly wrong to substitute
mutation for selection within evolutionary theory.
Many years and millions of dollars of mostly public
money were just wasted finding this out because it
was always quite obvious that a random process cannot
produce evolution on its own, only variation. Today
exactly the same false logic is being repeated.
Now it is the turn of random genetic drift to replace
natural selection as causative to evolution. If the
established peer review process makes such a basic
error once then the process fails. However,
when it repeats exactly the same error the system
must stand condemned and be replaced as quickly
as possible.
> BOH:-
> The
> second is that they do not know how to write a scientific paper in a way
> that is acceptable. There are conventions that are observed (such as
> the Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussion structure), which are
> considered important. It would be unfortunate if a paper were rejected
> because it did not conform to this standard. However, all is not lost.
> There are several books about scientific writing, so I would advise
> that these are consulted.
JE:-
I agree a BASIC format should exist. That does _not_ present
a problem.
> BOH
> I suspect that a manuscript with a good idea from a non-specialist might
> be treated with some sympathy if it was clear that the author had tried
> to get the format right. Of course, if the ideas are nuts, then no
> amount of skill in writing will help: you just have to make sure you
> have the right co-authors (e.g. W.D. Hamilton would be a good one to
> try. You just have to get his address right).
JE:-
What is "nuts" can be more about in-group
expectation than anything else. It was
"nuts" for Einstein to suggest that mass
increased with velocity and time
dilation really existed just as it still
remains "nuts" for evolution to replace divine
creation for the majority of people. When the
inquisition was torturing and burning hapless
witches, it was "nuts" to question the authority
of the church on such basic matters. So it
goes for tribal conformity and protection.
An idea that is "nuts" can present
a VALID point of refutation for an existing idea.
Popper, who was a ex-communist learnt this from
bitter experience. This is why the process of
refutation is the only UNBIASED referee. If a
view is refutable then it's scientific but
if it is not, then it isn't.
Since Dr O'Hara is freely employing the concept
of nutty ideas to just others, lets make this a
_self consistent_ exercise and apply it to Dr O'Hara.
The good Dr has proposed that I was deleting all
random processes from within a natural population.
Such a view is about as "nutty" as you can get.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to delete ANY random process
from ANY natural population. Now imagine that
Dr O'Hara et al are involved in a peer review.
Now the nutty ideas are in danger of becoming
cemented dogma while the truth remains shut out.
Using of such a group selected effect, the evolution
of science may become halted providing a relative
gain for O'Hara et al but just an absolute loss to
science. Since Dr O'Hara makes a living from
science an absolute loss to science is also
an absolute loss for Dr O'Hara. Relatives gains
producing absolute losses ARE NOT RATIONAL. Yet,
as Dr O'Hara well knows, because Hamilton's Rule
remains 100% relative without the total fitness of
the actor included within it, the rule cannot
differentiate between fitness altruism and
fitness mutualism. But this is ALL the rule
has ever been employed to do.
Here is a telling answer to a critical question
I asked a way back which proves that altruism cannot
be distinguished from mutualism (its contradictory
opposite) within Hamilton rule. The use of Hamilton's
rule as an accounting device to measure when
altruism can evolve constitutes THE classic
example of a misuse of an over-simplified model.
In Hamilton's rule the sign of c is the ONLY
way the rule can measure a difference between
altruism (organism fitness altruism) and
mutualism (organism fitness mutualism) where
mutualism is NOT altruistic.
------------------- quote -------------------
JE:-
What is the difference between
a reduced positive c and a negative c?
If c was an abolute measure of fitness
then yes, a real difference exists. However
c is only a relative fitness cost and not
an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
difference?
BOH:-
As far as the rule is concerned, none.
---------------------------------------------
I have _repeatedly_ asked every Neo Darwinist
that posts here this question, including NAS.
None have ever provided an answer except Dr
O'Hara. However he still refuses to agree that
his answer provides _proof_ of the misuse of
Hamilton's rule. Such enormously
high levels of evasion is itself an objective
observation that can validly be incorporated
into a testable theory of why such a high level
denial exists within gene centric Neo Darwinism.
My Regards,
Name And Address Supplied
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:
>
> > > JE:-
> > > If the Peer review process had worked
> > > correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> > > evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> > > with many other misused oversimplified models.
>
> > NAS:-
> > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
>
> JE:-
> I am only proposing a simple "IF THEN" deductive
> proposition. I am allowed to do so in a free
> county. IF Hamilton's rule does contain a
> basic error i.e. only constitutes an absurdity,
> THEN the current peer review process has been
> proven to have failed.
>
>
> My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
> is in two distinct parts:
I read what you had to say, and I have to say that you have seriously
misunderstood Hamilton's rule (HR). rb>c is a conceptual tool which
describes the action of selection on social behaviours. If we want to
apply it as a starting point to any model, then we might make certain
assumptions, such as "relatedness is a parameter and not an evolving
variable". This would then provide a reference 'constant' for the
model to hinge on. It would be even better if we just made a model
without reference to Hamilton's rule, and found a condition in terms
of that model's parameters which described the evolution of the social
behaviour. We could then bring HR afterwards, to help explain our
result. I think your problem is that you want HR to say more than it
does. You are over interpretting it, and therein lie your
difficulties.
John Edser
Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> > > > JE:-
> > > > If the Peer review process had worked
> > > > correctly Hamilton's absurd logic would not have invaded
> > > > evolutionary theory over the last 50 years, along
> > > > with many other misused oversimplified models.
> > > NAS:-
> > > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
> > JE:-
> > I am only proposing a simple "IF THEN" deductive
> > proposition. I am allowed to do so in a free
> > county. IF Hamilton's rule does contain a
> > basic error i.e. only constitutes an absurdity,
> > THEN the current peer review process has been
> > proven to have failed.
> >
> > My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
> > is in two distinct parts:
> NAS:-
> I read what you had to say, and I have to say that you have seriously
> misunderstood Hamilton's rule (HR). rb>c is a conceptual tool which
> describes the action of selection on social behaviours.
JE;-
No, two SPECIFICALLY DEFINED
"social behaviours" which
remain logically self exclusive:
1) Organism fitness altruism (OFA)
2) Organism fitness mutualism (OFM)
Because they are contradictory and
not complimentary social behaviours
one must exclude the other.
> NAS:-
> If we want to
> apply it as a starting point to any model, then we might make certain
> assumptions, such as "relatedness is a parameter and not an evolving
> variable". This would then provide a reference 'constant' for the
> model to hinge on.
JE:-
Firstly: Do you agree or disagree
that the rule requires a frame
of reference in order to be able to
differentiate OFA from OFM?
Secondly: In order to help me and other
sbe reader's understand what you are
now proposing, would you please indicate
if you agree or disagree that Hamilton's
Rule is applied as a STAND ALONE fitness
accounting device that has been in the
past and remains today, employed to
measure when organism fitness altruism
can evolve within nature?
At the moment I do not think I agree
that "relatedness is a parameter and
not an evolving variable" can provide
a frame of reference for the rule.
However, this does partly depend on
your answer to the two questions above.
> NAS:-
> It would be even better if we just made a model
> without reference to Hamilton's rule, and found a condition in terms
> of that model's parameters which described the evolution of the social
> behaviour.
JE:-
Please provide the logic of such
a model, i.e. outline in simple
terms what it is and how it is
supposed to work.
> NAS:-
> We could then bring HR afterwards, to help explain our
> result. I think your problem is that you want HR to say more than it
> does. You are over interpretting it, and therein lie your
> difficulties.
JE:-
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Is it not an indisputable fact that
the rule has and remains employed
within the science of biology as
a valid fitness accounting device
employed to measure when OFA can
evolve within nature?
If you agree this a fact, biology
want HR to say more than it
does and Neo Darwinism is vastly
"over interpreting it" and not
myself.
Another way to tackle this problem
is for you to define the limits of
what HR can validly measure within:
1)A heuristic model.
2) The science of biology.
John Edser
> > you just have to make sure you
> > have the right co-authors (e.g. W.D. Hamilton would be a good one to
> > try. You just have to get his address right).
> Well, that could be difficult.
JE:-
Indeed, W.D. Hamilton is now deceased.
He died rejected by the same establishment
that embraced him only because of his
controversial theory re: AIDS.
John Edser
William Morse <wdm...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> WM:-
> 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 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 in a post-publishing-peer-
> reviewed instead of a pre-publishing-peer-reviewed setting. Neither has
> been successful. 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.
JE:-
I entirely agree that sbe provides a forum for free
and fair discussion of evolutionary theory and
related subjects. However, so called "pre-peer review"
is NOT a review of anything very much, it is just
an informal discussion, no more and no less. Until
an idea is more formally presented people cannot
even claim to understand it, let alone appraise
it. This is way a more formal process is required
within the sciences.
Everybody discusses most things all of the time.
Hopefully such intensive discussion never ends.
One of the classic discussions of all time is
Haldane's famous comment in a pub that he would
die for two brothers or eight cousins. Haldane's
logic limits his total fitness to just 1. Quite
clearly such a reproductive total cannot compete
against a total of 2 which he may have obtained
had he not died. This simple fact outlines the
ongoing faulty logic of kin selection which simply
deleted the total fitness of the supposed
altruist.
Does Bill Morse agree/disagree with a proposal
for a more formal, democratic and transparent
system of peer review publication being
trailed within sbe? If not would he please
outline his case against this proposal.
Regards,
John Edser
> > > NAS:-
> > > Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> > > peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> > > academic rigour that normally warrants this.
> > JE:-
> > NAS's conclusions re: myself are not only unwarranted they
> > are childish. If he thinks that theoretical work does
> > not require dedication and hard work then NAS has no idea
> > about what he is talking about.
> NAS:-
> On the contrary, I think that *good* theoretical work does require
> dedication and hard work. And there is nothing in the peer review
> system which will present such good work being published. Especially
> when you submit to Journal of *Theoretical* Biology, as I suggested.
JE:-
The problem is to separate "good" from
just hopeless cultural group selection
within the present monopolistic peer
review process.
"Outsiders" have to make a rational appraisal
of the level of prejudice re: their subject
matter and their lack of qualifications that
"insiders" do not have to make.
I was advised by Dr Hoelzer that a
paper based on just a negative appraisal
of Hamilton's Rule would probably not be
accepted. Therefore I am attempting
to put back the total fitness of the actor
into the rule. I have previously attempted
to do so but I am not satisfied with these
attempts. Once again I stress that any attempt
of myself to repair the rule remains a separate
issue to error diagnosis within the rule.
In this discussion I am concentrating on
error diagnoses within the rule. However
the two remain inextricably linked.
> > JE:-
> > Given such a high level of
> > prejudice displayed by NAS et al who purport to be evolutionary
> > theory professionals and the level of evasion and indifference
> > shown by most of the other Neo Darwinists that post here,
> > it comes as no surprise to me and many others
> > that Darwin left debate to others like Huxley
> > mostly concentrating on his own book and private
> > research.
> NAS
> Private research, which he then communicated eloquently to his peers.
JE:-
Yes, after 20 years. Wallace forced him
into print. I think if Darwin could have
had his way he would not have been published until
after his death. He had a dread of controversy
and guarded his privacy. He fully understood
the storm of controversy his theory would produce
via the high level of both ridicule and praise
he would now be subjected to.
> > JE:-
> > The historical fact that Mendel could only be
> > published in an obscure journal means an obscure sbe
> > peer reviewed and electronically published journal
> > has to be a good thing.
> NAS:-
> Did Mendel attempt to get published in a more appropriate,
> peer-reviewed journal?
JE:-
I do not know. I am sure somebody else here does.
I don' t think it matters. What matters is that
he was able to publish *somewhere*.
> > JE:-
> > Imagine how much the retardation
> > of the biological sciences would have suffered if Mendel
> > did not even have an obscure journal to publish his work!
> NAS:-
> Actually, his ideas were independently formulated by several other
> researchers, who only afterwards discovered his precedent. So I
> imagine the retardation of the biological sciences would have been
> close to nil.
JE:-
We may never know but I still argue
the more forums/journals that exist the
greater the chance that ground breaking
ideas like Mendel's may see the light of
day sooner rather than later.
>snip<
> > JE:-
> > The fact that Hamilton's original paper was rejected by
> > the peer review process and the admittance by NAS that
> > only confusion reigns among biologist re: what Hamilton's
> > ideas actually mean confirms the fact that
> > epistemological confusion abounds within evolutionary
> > theory concerning the _correct_ use of mathematical
> > models within a science of biology. I have attempted
> > to raise this thorny issue on many different occasions. It
> > has always been evaded. Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper
> > never even existed, something like the way Stalin acted as
> > if Mendel had never existed. It seems clear to me
> > that RN's point re: people have status positions to protect
> > against "outsiders" who can only pose a threat to them, is
> > correct. However, science does not have "outsiders", it only
> > deals in testable ideas. The only outsiders that science
> > allows are non testable ideas. Neo Darwinism in general and
> > Hamilton in particular, remain non testable theories of nature.
> > They can only be tested to non verification which is not
> > definitive. No wonder Neo Darwinists have decided to throw
> > out Karl Popper.
> NAS:-
> John, I've read Popper, and I don't see how you are reaching this
> conclusion.
JE:-
Please list at least one point of refutation
for Hamilton's rule (as a single proposition).
Please do not make the error of providing
just a point of non verification or confuse
the rule with what it purports to be able
to measure.
> > JE:-
> > The peer review process is supposed to advance and not
> > retard the evolution of the sciences. Instead, it
> > appears it can be freely employed to advance the power and
> > status of some group selected individuals against the
> > interests of other individuals and thus science in
> > general.
> NAS:-
> Appearances can be deceptive. Especially when the observer is a crank,
> who wishes to escape their personal feelings of failure by fantasising
> about a monolithic corrupt and conspiring power structure which is out
> to get him.
JE:-
As I have previously mentioned, the use of
political terms like "crank" to attempt
to assassinate a competing idea has
absolutely no place within a
RATIONAL discussion. The use of this word
says more about the mental state of any
person who employs it than the person it
was directed against. Please read Popper
again. He makes a most important point
that any idea, no matter how outrageous or
unacceptable to any in-group, remains valid
if and only if it provides a point of refutation.
Conversely, any idea no matter how cherished
or established is NOT acceptable if it cannot
provide at least one point of refutation.
You don't require a PhD to understand such
a basic.
> NAS:-
> Have you actually interacted with academics, John? In my
> experience, we simply don't have the organisational skills to run such
> a process.
JE:-
I have. Like anywhere else, my experience
was of a mixture of personalities. These
range from manipulators/bullies
to the scrupulously fair. The
trouble is, because cultural group selection
remains endemic within any over centralised
establishment, bullies and manipulators
maintain an edge.
Peter F
> of scientists who have taken a hard look at it think it has some
> validity.
There a plenty of mathematically workable constructs (published and on paper)
that are yet to be found to reflect (be relevant to) something real
other than their own kind of workability.
I have spotted quite a few examples of to me absurd
mathematical theorizing, in s.b.e..
But there is little use in trying to convince people, whose lives are
committed to pointlessly
[except for these 2 points:
1. being paid (for)
2. maintaining an AEVASIVE preoccupation]
compromise "making *realistically rational* (not always common)
sense" with academically accepted algebra, to agree and to go cold-turkey.
I have in fact not seen seen *any* "accEPTably
encompassing" algebraic evolution-theoretical concepts, anywhere.
And, I don't expect any such will ever eventuate.
(BTW, the closest anyone will can ever get to write down a *best possible
model* of biological evolution is to do so in the form of a 'recipe'
for a computer simulation.)
P
ekur...@whoknowswhere.com
> "EKurtz" <NoJ...@ForgetIt.com> wrote in message news:<cn997j$268b$1...@darwin.ediacara.org>...
>>>in this field, are wrong. I don't see how a properly laid-out argument
>>>against Hamilton could be hindered by the peer review process.
>>>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,
>>
>>I would expect the editors to reject a submission from a contributor whose
>>mathematical abilities are those of a C-grade high-school student, and who
>>manages to misconstrue the most elementary principles of evolutionary
>>biology.
>
>
> Right - and that's what we want, surely?
I don't dispute that the editorial review/peer review system is
effective in dealing with submissions from crackpots. The point is - how
well does it deal with serious submissions? Consider the following:
=======================================================
Brain. 2000 Sep;123 ( Pt 9):1964-9.
Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement
between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Rothwell PM, Martyn CN.
Department of Clinical Neurology, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, UK.
peter.r...@clneuro.ox.ac.uk
We aimed to determine the reproducibility of assessments made by
independent reviewers of papers submitted for publication to clinical
neuroscience journals and abstracts submitted for presentation at
clinical neuroscience conferences. We studied two journals in which
manuscripts were routinely assessed by two reviewers, and two
conferences in which abstracts were routinely scored by multiple
reviewers. Agreement between the reviewers as to whether manuscripts
should be accepted, revised or rejected was not significantly greater
than that expected by chance [kappa = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI)
-0.04 to -0.20] for 179 consecutive papers submitted to Journal A, and
was poor (kappa = 0.28, 0.12 to 0. 40) for 116 papers submitted to
Journal B.
=======================================================
There is no obvious reason to think that these results are unique to
clinical neuroscience.
The anonymity of the process of review, and the technical difficulty for
an outsider (or an associate editor) to judge whether a rejection is or
is not fair, gives a single hostile or inept reviewer an effective veto
on a paper. I have not met anyone in my own line of work (genomic
sequence analysis) who does not complain bitterly about the unfairness
and arbitrariness of the process. Such complaints appear to be universal:
"Mention “peer review” and almost every scientist will regale you with
stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a
manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and
steal the glory."
Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? (2001)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/293/5538/2187a.pdf
Ironically, "Science" is as bad as any other journal. I have seen
serious submissions to that journal based on months of detailed work
dismissed by reviewers in a few sloppily-written and uncomprehending
sentences.
John Edser
>Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> NAS:-
> Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement. It is pointless to
> argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
> your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
JE:-
Quite. However, as I have previously laboured
in detail, mathematics is NOT a SCIENCE.
Put explicitly: Hamilton's rule is logical
but not rational. To be rational the rule must
contain at least one constant term. Because
the rule is not rational it remains a misused
mathematical model of fitness. It is that
simple.
Jim McGinn
> > It's nonsense. Anybody that tells you differently doesn't
> > know what they are talking about.
>
> Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement.
It's mathematical nonsense. As I've demonstrated.
It is pointless to
> argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
> your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
>
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > I have. It's nonsense.
>
> I'm struggling to understand in what sense a mathematical fact can be
> described as nonsense.
If you believe that then you should can start by
addressing the issues that I brought up previously
that have yet to be properly addressed.
>
> > 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.
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > I've already said what I have to say.
>
> Science isn't just about understanding, it is about communicating. To
> unweave your argument from the tortuous archives of sbe is, quite
> frankly, not worth my time.
That's your choice.
If you are really interested in science,
> you will submit an appropriate manuscript outlining your ideas to a
> peer reviewed journal. Once you have a paper in print, I'll know that
> it's worth looking at.
IMO, it's not necessary to refute something the validity
of which has never been demonstrated. If you think you
can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's rule then, by
all means, go for it. And it makes no difference to me
what medium you employ.
>
> > Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
>
> Sorry, but I don't recall any justification given for that assertion.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> > JMcG:-
> > I've already said what I have to say.
> > Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
>
> JE:-
> These differences could be cleared up
> if more formal publications were to be
> reviewed within sbe.
John, I think you see the classic (paper-based) peer-review
journals as some kind of panacea. I don't. As far as I'm
concerned these journals are an ineffective medium when
dealing with the complexity and obscurity of evolutionary
thinking. Unfortunately the net effect of this process
over the last 50 years is to have achieved little more
than to provide the different contributors an excuse for
talking past each other. (Keep in mind that it is the
peer-review process that first accepted [or just turned
their heads] Hamilton's nonsense.)
> Either we are "trashers
> of Hamilton's Rule" OR Hamilton's rule is
> just trash. This proposition is entirely
> rational because it can be tested to
> refutation simply because these predictions
> remain self exclusive.
>
> Jim and I differ in basics as to why Hamilton's
> reasoning remains in error. What I would
> like to ask Jim is, does he support
> a 100% _transparent_ and _democratic_
> peer review process being attempted within
> sbe for the electronic publication of
> sbe peer reviewed papers?
I suppose.
I would
> welcome any paper being submitted to
> such a process by Jim and hopefully many
> others here. My argument remains: there is
> nothing for SCIENCE to lose but everything
> for science to gain by evolving sbe to another,
> _optional_ level of publication. It is also rather
> obvious that NAS and many others here that do
> not support sbe peer reviewed papers, feel they
> have everything to lose and nothing to gain
> if this process became a reality. This is
> because they now suffer the risk that
> it may be more FORMALLY proven that their
> interpretation of the rule has been incorrect
> for over 50 years.
AFAIC, it's not necessary to refute something the
validity of which as never been demonstrated.
John Edser
ekur...@WhoKnowsWhere.com wrote:
> EK:-
> I don't dispute that the editorial review/peer review system is
> effective in dealing with submissions from crackpots.
> The point is - how
> well does it deal with serious submissions?
JE:-
The two are linked. W.D. Hamilton the author
of Hamilton's Rule went from being an
honoured Professor to just a "crank".
The rejection by Science of Hamilton's
paper re: a testable hypothesis of how
AIDS may have started became an all out
intellectual war between Hamilton and
the establishment he served.
Hamilton was suggesting that AIDS was
started by a gross error of a lab in Afica
which was producing polio vacine in an acknowledged
dangerous medium where viruses from one species
could have crossed over into another. This batch of
vacine was allegedly forcibly trialed on local
tribal people. I think Hamilton
was looking for evidence of AIDS related
viruses in the local chimp populations where the
lab that made the questionable vacine was
know to be situated because a bodily fluid
from chimps was knowingly and incorrectly used
to culture the polio vacine only at that particular lab.
If AIDS related viruses were found in these chimp
populations then an on-the-face-of-it link
would have been documented requiring futher research.
Hamilton died of a malarial attack while attempting
this important work. To my knowedge this work ceased
at his death. For myself, the whole thing stinks.
W. D. Hamilton went from being a highly respected in-group
Professor to just an to out-group "crank" in a milli-
second as the established and monopolistic peer review
process closed ranks to protect themselves, their
associated researchers and the people who financed
them. In evolutionary theory terms: group selection
via an established order destroyed a valid (refutable)
hypothesis of science because it was politically
convenient for people with a higher status. They
relatively gained but absolutely lost because science
absolutely lost. We will never know by how much this act
of cultural group selection will delay a cure for AIDS
and thus how many people must needlessly die because
this research was halted. Economists call this an
"opportunity cost". It is a term evolutionary theorists
should aquaint themselves with because selection is all
about minimising opportunity costs.
It appears W. D. Hamilton was hoist by his own
petard because he made exactly the same error
within Hamilton's rule. The rule suggests an altruistic
gene can be measured to just relatively spread when rb>c
ignoring the RATIONAL fact that it may be totally
(absolutely) reduced where this CANNOT be
determined via the rule as it stands unless the
total fitness of the actor is put back into
the rule. A relative fitness gain for just an
absolute fitness loss cannot be selected FOR.
> EK:-
JE:-
Does EK support or reject an attempt by sbe
to trial a democratic and transparent peer
review process?
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:
I'm basically happy with the current set-up of usenet.
The main thing I /don't/ like about this particular group
is the fact that it's moderated - and particular segments
of the population are systematically denied a voice here.
As far as setting up some formal method of reviewing material
on s.b.e goes, I've got no time to contribute to this as
reviewer, and if some sort of review panel existed, I doubt
it would make much difference to the way I submitted material.
Other forums I participate in do things like nominate
particularly useful posts for "cream of the crop" status -
and hold periodic votes to find the best post. Alternatively
some forums are filtered by individuals into a "best posts"
digest - designed for those who just want to skim a few
good-quality posts.
These are fairly low maintenance options. However, I'm
not sure s.b.e has enough good quality material to warrant
much along these lines at this stage.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
John Edser
Jim McGinn wrote:
> > > JMcG:-
> > > I've already said what I have to say.
> > > Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
> > JE:-
> > These differences could be cleared up
> > if more formal publications were to be
> > reviewed within sbe.
> JMcG:-
> John, I think you see the classic (paper-based) peer-review
> journals as some kind of panacea. I don't.
JE:-
I am not advocating a paper based peer
review system. Such things are Victorian.
I am suggesting an electronic and democratic
publication process that focuses on
the ideas more than the people behind
them.
As I think you pointed out, usenet is
fast so it allows ideas to flow, confront
and hopefully resolve and not just
sedately move past each other to gain
in-group brownie points. What is
missing is a way to provide more of a focus
before the better ideas just flow away in a
sea of babble. Google searches can retrieve
some of it but it can take a considerable
effort.
A more formal system of publishing will
be required to store more polished ideas
which can be more easily retrieved.
More than just the author must have a
say in such a publication. Ideas have
to be communicated as well as developed.
This requires at least a small group of
people to review an idea just to prove
somebody else can understand it.
> JmcG:-
> As far as I'm
> concerned these journals are an ineffective medium when
> dealing with the complexity and obscurity of evolutionary
> thinking. Unfortunately the net effect of this process
> over the last 50 years is to have achieved little more
> than to provide the different contributors an excuse for
> talking past each other. (Keep in mind that it is the
> peer-review process that first accepted [or just turned
> their heads] Hamilton's nonsense.)
JE:-
No system is infallible. All you can
ask for is that it can minimise error
and quickly self correct.
Hamilton's Rule has become so entrenched
it cannot be corrected without severe
pain to many powerful individuals whose
natural reaction is to fight back.
A faster, more democratic and transparent
peer review system may have sorted out the
error I argue Hamilton et al have made:
the deletion of the total fitness of the
actor from the rule, much earlier in its
development.
> > JE:-
> > What I would
> > like to ask Jim is, does he support
> > a 100% _transparent_ and _democratic_
> > peer review process being attempted within
> > sbe for the electronic publication of
> > sbe peer reviewed papers?
> JMcG:-
> I suppose.
JE:-
Ok.
> > JE:-
> > I would >
> > welcome any paper being submitted to
> > such a process by Jim and hopefully many
> > others here. My argument remains: there is
> > nothing for SCIENCE to lose but everything
> > for science to gain by evolving sbe to another,
> > _optional_ level of publication. It is also rather
> > obvious that NAS and many others here that do
> > not support sbe peer reviewed papers, feel they
> > have everything to lose and nothing to gain
> > if this process became a reality. This is
> > because they now suffer the risk that
> > it may be more FORMALLY proven that their
> > interpretation of the rule has been incorrect
> > for over 50 years.
> JMcG:-
> AFAIC, it's not necessary to refute something the
> validity of which as never been demonstrated.
JE:-
We differ as to why the rule is bad
science. I do not claim to have refuted
Hamilton's Rule, I claim that it
remains invalid _because_ it is
irrefutable and therefore not a valid
theory of science. The rule is logical
but not rational. Mathematics is
logical but not necessarily rational.
All rational things are logical but
not all logical things are rational.
Because we can calculate time running
backwards does not mean that this is
a rational concept. Without the
total fitness of the actor put back
into the rule, it remains irrational
to suggest just rb-c>0 can act as a
valid accounting device to separate
organism fitness altruism from
organism fitness mutualism.
I claim that the rule cannot be refuted
because it is only based on the
irrefutable axioms of mathematics.
Mathematics is not a science because
its axioms cannot be refuted. Therefore
I can only conclude the rule is just
a misused mathematical model.
Name And Address Supplied
> "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > NAS:-
> > > I think this is telling. Your impression of the peer review process is
> > > based on the assumption that Hamilton's logic is absurd. *Given* that
> > > it is absurd, and given that it is established convention within the
> > > peer-reviewed literature, then you logically infer that there is
> > > something chronically wrong with the peer review process.
>
> > M:-
> > The problem is, John is outside the peer group, and not only is
> > his take on
> > Hamilton's theory rejected by them, he cannot even get it heard,
> > because he
> > is effectively frozen out of the publication process.
>
> JE:-
> I have been advised by Dr Hoelzer that a publication
> based mainly on a negative critique of Hamilton's
> rule would be unlikely to be accepted for publication.
Right, and I agree. But only because flawed logic will tend to be
weeded out of the peer review process, and I believe your logic to be
flawed. If you are really onto something though, if you have really
got some crucial insight missed by evolutionary biologists, then
there's no reason why your paper should be rejected. Showing that
Hamilton was wrong would earn you instant fame and kudos within the
evolution theory community. Simply because it is 'negative' is not
going to mean that it isn't publishable. I've published 'negative'
papers before, without running into any problems.
> Given the response and consistent evasion of most of
> the purported professional Neo Darwinists that post here,
> this comes at no surprise to me. Until a peer review process
> becomes 100% _transparent_ and _democratic_ the powers
> that be, when they make a basic error, can always
> invoke group selection to attempt to cover it up.
If you believe that, then you are clearly delusional. Why not give it
a try, hey? What do you have to lose? At the end of the day, if it is
rejected, then you can post your manuscript online - a single, concise
rendering of your argument, for all to see. Then people like me won't
have to hunt through reams of newsgroup threads to get an inkling of
what ideas you are trying to impart.
> >snip<
>
> > > M:-
> > > 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.
>
> > NAS:-
> > It was probably rejected in short order. What I find interesting is that
> > John proposes a peer review system for sbe, i.e. the smae system but with
> > himself in the peer group. We cannot escape our evolutionary conditioning.
>
John, you're going to have to stop doing this. The above quote is not
from me. Please stop putting words in my mouth!
Name And Address Supplied
> > > NAS:-
> > > If today's independent researcher wishes to publish a book outside of
> > > the peer review process (a la Darwin) then there is nothing to stop
> > > them doing that. If they want to publish in obscure journals with zero
> > > or poor peer-review (a la Mendel) then they can do that also.
>
> > M:-
> > The problem is that the convention is developing that only peer-reviewed
> > journals are cited in other peer-reviewed publications. So the
> > self-publishing eccentric is still effectively frozen out of the
> > discourse.
>
> JE:-
> Evolutionary theory has a logic that
> describes this process: group selection.
> Perhaps NAS would like to comment on it.
?
> > > NAS:-
> > > Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> > > peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> > > academic rigour that normally warrants this.
>
> > M:-
> > Of course. John's argument is largely theoretical and not backed up by
> > empirical observations.
>
> JE:-
> Yes, my argument is evolutionary theoretical
> (this is an evolutionary theory discussion group!)
> but it IS backed up by empirical observation.
> The irony is the Neo Darwinian argument
> has NOT been backed up by observation.
> Not one single independent genomic gene fitness
> has ever been documented within nature where
> such an observation is absolutely required
> to turn gene centric heuristics into
> non never never land, biology.
>
I'm not sure quite what you are getting at, but perhaps you are
referring to some quantity, that you view as being key, that is hard
to measure directly. If so, then consider that predictions of this
"never never land" theory have been laboriously tested, and the
overwhelming majority of the empirical data suggests that neodarwinism
theory is valid (in that it makes testable predictions which turn out
to be accurate).
> OTOH, countless observations of Darwinian
> fertile organism centric observations of
> nature have been documented. Not a single
> instance of organism fitness altruism (OFA) has
> been documented where fertile organism
> fitness mutualism (OFM, its contesting causative
> theory opposite) cannot explain the same
> observations. The reason this is so is because
> the accounting device used to separate OFA
> from OFM, Hamilton's rule, remains faulty.
This is not what I see as the standard useage of Hamilton's rule.
Hamilton's rule is used to predict (or better, conceptualise) how
selection operates on social traits.
> Because
> the total fitness of the actor is not included
> 100% of all measurement made by the rule remain
> relative. This being the case, the rule cannot
> distinguish between a fitness debit and fitness
> credit. Did anybody have shares in Enron?
Oh, enough of the Enron thing, already. I'm getting bored with that.
The difference between debits and credits is the sign of the marginal
fitness component of interest. For instance, the direct effect of the
social trait on the actor is -c; if c > 0 this means that the direct
effect is deleterious, if c < 0 then the effect is beneficial. Is all
this really stemming from your inability to see that -c is positive
when c<0?
> Please note only I have porvided:
> 1) A definition of absolute Darwinian
> fitness which can be measured within nature.
I recall that this was simply the number of offspring that an
individual has, right?
> 2) A experiment (NOT just a model) to test
> this key concept to refutation.
Can you remind me what this way? I may have missed it. Also, I recall
asking how your definition in (1) could be used to model the evolution
of sex allocation . . . though I don't recall ever getting an answer
to that.
> 3) My fitness logic remains self consistent,
> measureable and entirely refutable.
Right, and my sex allocation question was a start at trying to refute
your hypothesis. Only you insisted on being evasive. I would apply
your 'logic' to the problem of sex allocation myself, however your
thinking is far from clear, and no doubt after I had proved your
fitness measure inadequate you would be claiming that I had
misunderstood your fitness measure.
> OTOH: Neo Darwinians have falied in
> ALL of the above.
Whatever.
> > M
> > I suspect that if he could cast his argument in mathematical terms and get
> > it to a mathematican, then, if sound, it would see the light of day.
>
> JE:-
> I am open to any mathematical help
> Re: putting the total fitness of the
> actor back into Hamilton's Rule. I
> am also open to contesting arguments
> that suggest that just a relative
> difference between rb and c is sufficient
> to separate OFA from OFM using Hamilton's
> Rule. My argument remains, until proven
> otherwise: it is NOT sufficient where
> this can easily be proven.
Right, and my argument remains: "you clearly do not understand what
Hamilton's rule is, not why it is used in evolutionary biology".
Name And Address Supplied
> >Name And Address Supplied wrote:
>
> > NAS:-
> > Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement. It is pointless to
> > argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
> > your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
>
> JE:-
> Quite. However, as I have previously laboured
> in detail, mathematics is NOT a SCIENCE.
> Put explicitly: Hamilton's rule is logical
> but not rational. To be rational the rule must
> contain at least one constant term. Because
> the rule is not rational it remains a misused
> mathematical model of fitness. It is that
> simple.
Evidently not that simple, because noone else in this newsgroup has a
clue as to what you are on about.
Name And Address Supplied
Right, so?
> > NAS:-
> > If we want to
> > apply it as a starting point to any model, then we might make certain
> > assumptions, such as "relatedness is a parameter and not an evolving
> > variable". This would then provide a reference 'constant' for the
> > model to hinge on.
>
> JE:-
> Firstly: Do you agree or disagree
> that the rule requires a frame
> of reference in order to be able to
> differentiate OFA from OFM?
If I understand your non-standard terms correctly, then OFA is
differentiable from OFM by the former having c>0 and the latter c<0.
> Secondly: In order to help me and other
> sbe reader's understand what you are
> now proposing, would you please indicate
> if you agree or disagree that Hamilton's
> Rule is applied as a STAND ALONE fitness
> accounting device that has been in the
> past and remains today, employed to
> measure when organism fitness altruism
> can evolve within nature?
>
It has been used for a lot of things; sometimes it has been misused by
people who haven't understood it. There are lots of interesting papers
on this - most of this was thrashed out in the 1980s - and so I don't
see why we are having to go through this again. Perhaps it is because
you are utterly ignorant of the developments in social evolution
theory that followed Hamilton's 1964 papers?
> At the moment I do not think I agree
> that "relatedness is a parameter and
> not an evolving variable" can provide
> a frame of reference for the rule.
> However, this does partly depend on
> your answer to the two questions above.
>
> > NAS:-
> > It would be even better if we just made a model
> > without reference to Hamilton's rule, and found a condition in terms
> > of that model's parameters which described the evolution of the social
> > behaviour.
>
> JE:-
> Please provide the logic of such
> a model, i.e. outline in simple
> terms what it is and how it is
> supposed to work.
For example, a population genetics model. Or a game theoretic model.
Or whatever.
> > NAS:-
> > We could then bring HR afterwards, to help explain our
> > result. I think your problem is that you want HR to say more than it
> > does. You are over interpretting it, and therein lie your
> > difficulties.
>
>
> JE:-
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
> Is it not an indisputable fact that
> the rule has and remains employed
> within the science of biology as
> a valid fitness accounting device
> employed to measure when OFA can
> evolve within nature?
You're absolutely right. And not infrequently, it is utterly misused
in its various applications.
> If you agree this a fact, biology
> want HR to say more than it
> does and Neo Darwinism is vastly
> "over interpreting it" and not
> myself.
Sadly, there is some truth in this. HR is often misinterpretted, and
people who have not properly understood the logic go out into the
field and misapply the rule in relation to the data that they collect.
However, this is not to say that HR is not as powerful as these people
believe - on the contrary, it is far more general than these people
realise.
> Another way to tackle this problem
> is for you to define the limits of
> what HR can validly measure within:
>
> 1)A heuristic model.
> 2) The science of biology.
The applications are limitless, insofar as you allow yourself to make
simplifying assumptions. Applying HR to a model, the predictions are
only as good as the model. The fault does not lie in HR. There is
nothing wrong with HR.
Name And Address Supplied
> name_and_add...@hotmail.com (Name And Address Supplied) wrote
>
> > > It's nonsense. Anybody that tells you differently doesn't
> > > know what they are talking about.
> >
> > Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement.
>
> It's mathematical nonsense. As I've demonstrated.
>
I must have missed that demonstration.
> It is pointless to
> > argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
> > your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
> >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I have. It's nonsense.
> >
> > I'm struggling to understand in what sense a mathematical fact can be
> > described as nonsense.
>
> If you believe that then you should can start by
> addressing the issues that I brought up previously
> that have yet to be properly addressed.
Sorry, all I can recall is a mass of assertions to the effect that
Hamilton's rule is nonsense. Was there more to it than that?
> >
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I've already said what I have to say.
> >
> > Science isn't just about understanding, it is about communicating. To
> > unweave your argument from the tortuous archives of sbe is, quite
> > frankly, not worth my time.
>
> That's your choice.
Right - and the onus is on you to get your ideas out there if you
think they are so damn insightful. Rather than bickering in threads,
why not write it all down clearly in a manuscript, and submit this to
a journal, or even post it on a webpage?
> If you are really interested in science,
> > you will submit an appropriate manuscript outlining your ideas to a
> > peer reviewed journal. Once you have a paper in print, I'll know that
> > it's worth looking at.
>
> IMO, it's not necessary to refute something the validity
> of which has never been demonstrated.
Possibly, but that's academic given that Hamilton has provided the
demonstration / derivation.
> If you think you
> can demonstrate the validity of Hamilton's rule then, by
> all means, go for it. And it makes no difference to me
> what medium you employ.
I would only be restating, or paraphrasing, Hamilton's derivation.
> >
> > > Hamilton's rule is invalidated.
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't recall any justification given for that assertion.
>
> Jim
Ah, good come back.
Name And Address Supplied
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > Essentially, he wants the best of both worlds. He wants the kudos of a
> > > > peer reviewed publication, but without any of the hard work and
> > > > academic rigour that normally warrants this.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > NAS's conclusions re: myself are not only unwarranted they
> > > are childish. If he thinks that theoretical work does
> > > not require dedication and hard work then NAS has no idea
> > > about what he is talking about.
>
> > NAS:-
> > On the contrary, I think that *good* theoretical work does require
> > dedication and hard work. And there is nothing in the peer review
> > system which will present such good work being published. Especially
> > when you submit to Journal of *Theoretical* Biology, as I suggested.
>
> JE:-
> The problem is to separate "good" from
> just hopeless cultural group selection
> within the present monopolistic peer
> review process.
No John - when a reviewer rejects a paper, they have to give good
reasons for doing so. How about you submit your manuscript, and see
what the reviewer has to say first, before all this second-guessing
pre-emptive conspiracy theory babbling. Say your manuscript is
rejected - then post it, along with the reviewer's commments, online,
out in the open, and we can all discuss it then.
> "Outsiders" have to make a rational appraisal
> of the level of prejudice re: their subject
> matter and their lack of qualifications that
> "insiders" do not have to make.
> I was advised by Dr Hoelzer that a
> paper based on just a negative appraisal
> of Hamilton's Rule would probably not be
> accepted.
I strongly disagree that such a negative result, if it stood up
logically, would fail to be published. The whole of science proceeds
through knocking down inept hypotheses.
> Therefore I am attempting
> to put back the total fitness of the actor
> into the rule.
Right, good for you - that can be your follow-up paper.
> I have previously attempted
> to do so but I am not satisfied with these
> attempts. Once again I stress that any attempt
> of myself to repair the rule remains a separate
> issue to error diagnosis within the rule.
> In this discussion I am concentrating on
> error diagnoses within the rule. However
> the two remain inextricably linked.
If you are correct, and you have a valid (though nonconstructive)
criticism of Hamilton's rule available, then i urge you to get it
written up and submitted to a journal. This will at least force you to
spell out your argument in unambiguous terms. And you never know, it
might just get published. Your later 'fix' which, will provide an
Edser's rule to replace the falled Hamilton's rule, can come later.
> > > JE:-
> > > Given such a high level of
> > > prejudice displayed by NAS et al who purport to be evolutionary
> > > theory professionals and the level of evasion and indifference
> > > shown by most of the other Neo Darwinists that post here,
> > > it comes as no surprise to me and many others
> > > that Darwin left debate to others like Huxley
> > > mostly concentrating on his own book and private
> > > research.
>
> > NAS
> > Private research, which he then communicated eloquently to his peers.
>
> JE:-
> Yes, after 20 years. Wallace forced him
> into print. I think if Darwin could have
> had his way he would not have been published until
> after his death. He had a dread of controversy
> and guarded his privacy. He fully understood
> the storm of controversy his theory would produce
> via the high level of both ridicule and praise
> he would now be subjected to.
Right, but you who is the champion of the interests of scientific
progress, you should be acting otherwise, no? Get the ideas out there
rather than sitting on them and occasionally burbling incoherently
about them in a newsgroup.
> > > JE:-
> > > The historical fact that Mendel could only be
> > > published in an obscure journal means an obscure sbe
> > > peer reviewed and electronically published journal
> > > has to be a good thing.
>
> > NAS:-
> > Did Mendel attempt to get published in a more appropriate,
> > peer-reviewed journal?
>
> JE:-
> I do not know. I am sure somebody else here does.
> I don' t think it matters. What matters is that
> he was able to publish *somewhere*.
Right; and there is nothing to stop you publishing this as an advert
in a newspaper, or finding a vanity press.
> > > JE:-
> > > Imagine how much the retardation
> > > of the biological sciences would have suffered if Mendel
> > > did not even have an obscure journal to publish his work!
>
> > NAS:-
> > Actually, his ideas were independently formulated by several other
> > researchers, who only afterwards discovered his precedent. So I
> > imagine the retardation of the biological sciences would have been
> > close to nil.
>
> JE:-
> We may never know but I still argue
> the more forums/journals that exist the
> greater the chance that ground breaking
> ideas like Mendel's may see the light of
> day sooner rather than later.
Not necessarily - if you have actually tried to keep up with the ever
expanding scientific literature, you will know that more journals
aren't necessarily going to help.
I'm really not sure what you want me to do. It is a mathematically
proven fact - what more needs to be done?
Get a grip - you are censoring yourself by not even trying to submit
your ideas for publication, or putting them in a coherent form in any
public forum. Lets wait for the shadowy men in darkened rooms to
respond to your manuscript before ranting about the injustice, okay?
> > NAS:-
> > Have you actually interacted with academics, John? In my
> > experience, we simply don't have the organisational skills to run such
> > a process.
>
> JE:-
> I have. Like anywhere else, my experience
> was of a mixture of personalities. These
> range from manipulators/bullies
> to the scrupulously fair. The
> trouble is, because cultural group selection
> remains endemic within any over centralised
> establishment, bullies and manipulators
> maintain an edge.
Like i said, don't knock it till you've tried it. Give the journals a
chance, and see how they respond.
Jim McGinn
> > JMcG:-
> > AFAIC, it's not necessary to refute something the
> > validity of which as never been demonstrated.
>
> JE:-
> We differ as to why the rule is bad
> science. I do not claim to have refuted
> Hamilton's Rule, I claim that it
> remains invalid _because_ it is
> irrefutable and therefore not a valid
> theory of science.
If it's irrefutable then it is, by definition, valid.
The rule is logical
> but not rational.
Pure Edserian nonsense.
Jim
John Edser
Re: Publishing scientific information
> > > JMcG:-
> > > AFAIC, it's not necessary to refute something the
> > > validity of which as never been demonstrated.
> > JE:-
> > We differ as to why the rule is bad
> > science. I do not claim to have refuted
> > Hamilton's Rule, I claim that it
> > remains invalid _because_ it is
> > irrefutable and therefore not a valid
> > theory of science.
> JMcG:-
> If it's irrefutable then it is, by definition, valid.
JE:-
It is logically valid but it is not
a valid theory of science because it is
not _rationally_ valid. Your error (which
is the same as the gene centric error)
constitutes a failure to distinguish between
logic and reason. All rational things
are logical but not all logical things
are rational. Science has to be rational
and not just logical. For any proposition
to be rational it has to be refutable.
> JE:-
> The rule is logical
> but not rational.
> JMcG:-
> Pure Edserian nonsense.
JE:-
I am flattered...
It is pure Popperian "nonsense"
I am afraid so I cannot take
the credit. Your retort must mean
that you entirely reject the
Popperian proposition that
any valid theory of science
must be refutable. Is this
the case?
Tim Tyler
> My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
> is in two distinct parts:
>
> 1) Proof of a basic error.
> 2) An attempt to remove it.
[...]
> Hamilton's rule:
>
> rb>c ...(1)
>
> (1) Not a single constant is represented within
> the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
> Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
> i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
> sciences any rational mathematical expression must
> refer back to at least one constant term in order
> to make any sense. [...]
Very funny.
I note that:
F = ma;
...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.
John Edser
Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
> > > NAS:-
> > > Hamilton's rule is a mathematically true statement. It is pointless to
> > > argue with it. You might as well try to square the circle, or spend
> > > your time looking for a counter-example for fermat's last theorem.
> > JE:-
> > Quite. However, as I have previously laboured
> > in detail, mathematics is NOT a SCIENCE.
> > Put explicitly: Hamilton's rule is logical
> > but not rational. To be rational the rule must
> > contain at least one constant term. Because
> > the rule is not rational it remains a misused
> > mathematical model of fitness. It is that
> > simple.
> NAS:-
> Evidently not that simple, because noone else in this newsgroup has a
> clue as to what you are on about.
JE:-
Popper suggested that only refutable theories
of nature are valid. Mathematics is NOT
a refutable theory of nature it is just a
logical structure based on _irrefutable_ axioms.
This was proven by Godel.
Pure mathematics does not purport
to represent anything within nature but it can
be applied within scientific theories of nature
where the mathematics does purport to measure
something in nature to test some idea about
nature. For the idea about nature to be
RATIONALLY valid (not the mathematics applied
within it!) that idea must be refutable.
As you freely admit, Hamilton's rule, as
it stands cannot be refuted. This is because
it remains entirely based on just mathematical
axioms. Until it is also based on a refutable
proposition of science it is not RATIONALLY valid.
For the rule to be able to become a RATIONAL
accounting device that CAN separate OFA from OFM
the TOTAL fitness of the actor must be represented
within the rule. Since the baseline fitness m
was deleted from the rule via simplification this
total which is absolutely required for the rule
to RATIONAL cannot be represented within the rule.
Thus the use of the rule as it stands to measure
when OFA can evolve within nature constituted
a misuse of Hamilton's Rule.
1) Do you agree that mathematics is not a science?
2) Do you agree that the total fitness of
the actor is missing from within the rule?
3) Do you agree this total fitness
is required for the rule to measure
the difference between OFA and OFM?
4) Do you agree that the missing total
fitness of the actor constitutes a
contesting Darwinian maximand fitness?
John Edser
> > > M:-
> > > Of course. John's argument is largely theoretical and not backed up by
> > > empirical observations.
> >
> > JE:-
> > Yes, my argument is evolutionary theoretical
> > (this is an evolutionary theory discussion group!)
> > but it IS backed up by empirical observation.
> > The irony is the Neo Darwinian argument
> > has NOT been backed up by observation.
> > Not one single independent genomic gene fitness
> > has ever been documented within nature where
> > such an observation is absolutely required
> > to turn gene centric heuristics into
> > non never never land, biology.
> NAS:-
> I'm not sure quite what you are getting at, but perhaps you are
> referring to some quantity, that you view as being key, that is hard
> to measure directly. If so, then consider that predictions of this
> "never never land" theory have been laboriously tested, and the
> overwhelming majority of the empirical data suggests that neodarwinism
> theory is valid (in that it makes testable predictions which turn out
> to be accurate).
JE:-
Please provide just a single documented
observation of NATURE of an independent
genomic gene fitness. This is a genomic
gene fitness that has been measured within
nature that cannot also be a Darwinian fertile
organism centric fitness and which is
not fitness epistatic to every other
gene within one genome.
> > JE:-
> > OTOH, countless observations of Darwinian
> > fertile organism centric observations of
> > nature have been documented. Not a single
> > instance of organism fitness altruism (OFA) has
> > been documented where fertile organism
> > fitness mutualism (OFM, its contesting causative
> > theory opposite) cannot explain the same
> > observations. The reason this is so is because
> > the accounting device used to separate OFA
> > from OFM, Hamilton's rule, remains faulty.
> NAS:-
> This is not what I see as the standard useage of Hamilton's rule.
> Hamilton's rule is used to predict (or better, conceptualise) how
> selection operates on social traits.
JE:-
I have asked you on many occasions:
Has Hamilton's rule has been employed as a
stand alone accounting device to measure
when OFA can evolve within nature by
gene centric Neo Darwinism for over
50 years? Please answer.
> > JE:-
> > Because
> > the total fitness of the actor is not included
> > 100% of all measurement made by the rule remain
> > relative. This being the case, the rule cannot
> > distinguish between a fitness debit and fitness
> > credit. Did anybody have shares in Enron?
> NAS:-
> Oh, enough of the Enron thing, already. I'm getting bored with that.
JE:-
I'm sure the holder's of Enron script
were not bored! Enron accounting
logic remains exactly the same as
Hamilton's: a 100% relative accounting
logic.
> NAS:-
> The difference between debits and credits is the sign of the marginal
> fitness component of interest. For instance, the direct effect of the
> social trait on the actor is -c; if c > 0 this means that the direct
> effect is deleterious, if c < 0 then the effect is beneficial. Is all
> this really stemming from your inability to see that -c is positive
> when c<0?
NAS:-
A subtraction of c from rb is NOT sufficient
to determine when OFA can evolve because it
cannot separate a real investment
from just an altruistic give away.
This is inevitable because the rule has no
frame of reference. This will remain so
while r,b and c remain variables within
a stand alone accounting device.
The actor may gain in the short term because
the cost c is negative but only end up losing
out after the fitness of the actor has been
TOTALLED and c suddenly turns positive.
Unless the fitness of the actor becomes a
total it remains incomplete so the FINAL
measure of the cost of c remains UNKNOWN.
Only the final value for the sign of c can
measure when OFA can evolve. Only in this
ONE case is the total fitness of the
actor now included and not just excluded
from the rule. Unless the fitness of
the actor becomes one finite total for
that actor just a relative gain or loss
along the way means absolutely nothing
re: separating OFA from OFM using the rule.
If you employ just a relative sign of c as
some sort of real measure of OFM or OFA
you must end up confusing an altruistic give
away cost c with a selfishly mutual investment
cost c allowing OFM to be _incorrectly_
paraded as OFA. I put it to you that
this has been the case for over 50 years.
In gene centric Neo Darwinian OFM has been
incorrectly paraded as OFA via a misuse
of Hamilton's Rule.
> > JE:-
> > Please note only I have provided:
> > 1) A definition of absolute Darwinian
> > fitness which can be measured within nature.
> NAS:-
> I recall that this was simply the number of offspring that an
> individual has, right?
JE:-
Absolutely NOT.
It is: The total number of fertile
forms each parent reproduces into
one population. I must have posted
this definition over 1000 times
in the last 4 years!
> > 2) A experiment (NOT just a model) to test
> > this key concept to refutation.
> NAS:-
> Can you remind me what this way? I may have missed it. Also, I recall
> asking how your definition in (1) could be used to model the evolution
> of sex allocation . . . though I don't recall ever getting an answer
> to that.
JE:-
The experimental outline is as follows:
Take a natural population, e.g. fruit flies
and breed them. Artificially allow the total
number of fertile forms reproduced by each
parent to remain _exactly_ the same within that population
over as many generations as possible. My prediction
is no evolution, at all, can now occur in that population
because only random variation via random processes
that cannot be deleted from any natural population
remain available to produce heritable change.
This experiment deletes all Darwinian selection.
If it fails to do so the definition of selection
I have provided (which I argue only remains implicit
from Darwin's original reasoning) stands refuted.
> > JE:-
> > 3) My fitness logic remains self consistent,
> > measurable and entirely refutable.
> NAS:-
> Right, and my sex allocation question was a start at trying to refute
> your hypothesis. Only you insisted on being evasive. I would apply
> your 'logic' to the problem of sex allocation myself, however your
> thinking is far from clear, and no doubt after I had proved your
> fitness measure inadequate you would be claiming that I had
> misunderstood your fitness measure.
JE:-
I replied that I do not understand
what you are suggesting. I am happy
to subject my proposed Darwinian maximand
to refutation. However, judging by your
replies I have no confidence that you
even understand the maximand fitness that
was proposed. This being the case I
have no idea how your sex allocation
purports to refute it. This remains your
refutation process and not mine. So,
please define what you are attempting
to refute and then provide the proof
of how sex allocation could refute it.
Then outline an experiment that
may produce a prohibited observation
from my proposed totally Darwinian,
fertile organism centric maximand.
> > > M
> > > I suspect that if he could cast his argument in mathematical
> > >terms and get
> > > it to a mathematican, then, if sound, it would see the light of day.
> > JE:-
> > I am open to any mathematical help
> > Re: putting the total fitness of the
> > actor back into Hamilton's Rule. I
> > am also open to contesting arguments
> > that suggest that just a relative
> > difference between rb and c is sufficient
> > to separate OFA from OFM using Hamilton's
> > Rule. My argument remains, until proven
> > otherwise: it is NOT sufficient where
> > this can easily be proven.
> NAS:-
> Right, and my argument remains: "you clearly do not understand what
> Hamilton's rule is, not why it is used in evolutionary biology".
JE:-
Was Hamilton's rule applied
as a stand alone fitness accounting
device within gene centric Neo
Darwinism for over 50 years to
measure when OFA can evolve
within nature?
Again: please answer this question.
John Edser
Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:-
> > My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
> > is in two distinct parts:
> > 1) Proof of a basic error.
> > 2) An attempt to remove it.
> [...]
> > Hamilton's rule:
> > rb>c ...(1)
> >
> > (1) Not a single constant is represented within
> > the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
> > Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
> > i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
> > sciences any rational mathematical expression must
> > refer back to at least one constant term in order
> > to make any sense. [...]
> TT:-
> Very funny.
> I note that:
> F = ma;
> ...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.
JE:-
I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
Within Newtonian mechanics
Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
which in this case is simply implied by
acceleration (a) because:
a = (change in v)/t
This very basic assumption of Newtonian
mechanics was refuted by the Michealson-Morely
experiment. Einstein's special theory of relativity
was just a refinement of the so called Galileian
transformation:
http://startup.byu.edu/moody/H243R/Notes%20to%20Einstein%20Chapters%206%20to
%209.htm
The velocity of
light in a vacuum replaced both mass and
time as maximand constants within the rational
science of physics. The velocity of light
in a vacuum constituted an amazing and
entirely unsuspected maximand value.
If you read my posts I have emphasised
that mathematical expressions that do
not directly include any constant term
within the expression must imply one,
i.e. refer back to one that does include
such a term if they are RATIONAL. They
can remain LOGICALLY correct without
a constant term or referring back to an
expression that does have a constant but
this does not mean such expressions
are rational. Only RATIONAL theories
of nature can be tested to refutation.
Theories only based on logic cannot be
so tested. This is why mathematics is
not a science.
Hamilton's rule:
1) Has no constant term.
2) Does not refer back to
any expression that does have
a constant term. The rule
remains incorrectly employed as a _stand
alone_ fitness accounting device to measure
when organism fitness altruism can evolve
within nature. Without the total fitness of
the actor providing a missing frame of reference
the rule is not fitness rational, i.e. cannot
measure any real difference between mutualism
and altruism allowing mutualism to be
incorrectly paraded as altruism.
Hamilton's Rule does not represent
a rational theory of nature so
it remains a misused mathematical
model. The people that perpetrated this
insult to the science of biology
are recalcitrant (for obvious
reasons). This is why I argue it
is a waste of time attempting to
publish this argument using today's
biased peer review system.
Tim Tyler
> acceleration [...]
Mass is a constant?!?
If so what is its value? ;-)
> If you read my posts I have emphasised
> that mathematical expressions that do
> not directly include any constant term
> within the expression must imply one,
> i.e. refer back to one that does include
> such a term if they are RATIONAL. They
> can remain LOGICALLY correct without
> a constant term or referring back to an
> expression that does have a constant but
> this does not mean such expressions
> are rational. Only RATIONAL theories
> of nature can be tested to refutation.
So: is the second law of thermodynamics
"RATIONAL"?
It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
constants I can see: it's expression is
usually of the form delta-S > 0.
...and yet it is easy to imagine the
second law being false - i.e. it is
a testable piece of physics.
> Hamilton's rule:
>
> 1) Has no constant term.
>
> 2) Does not refer back to
> any expression that does have
> a constant term. [...]
So what?
That says absolutely nothing about whether it is correct or not.
Plenty of accurate statements don't need to have constants in them.
For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
I throw three dice rather than two.
That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.
The notion that an equation having no constants in it indicates a problem
with the theory it represents is completely misguided.
Jim McGinn
> > NAS:-
> > Evidently not that simple, because noone else in this newsgroup has a
> > clue as to what you are on about.
>
> JE:-
> Popper suggested that only refutable theories
> of nature are valid.
You obviously misunderstood Popper.
Why don't you refer to Popper's actual words?
Jim
John Edser
Name And Address Supplied wrote:-
>snip<
> NAS:-
> I'm really not sure what you want me to do.
JE:-
Then could not have understood what
you have read re: Karl Popper.
A point of refutation is an _exact_ but _prohibited_
observation of _nature_ and not just an allowed
observation that just never eventuated.
Any prohibited observation remains a logically sound
observation that must _never_ become documented within
nature, e.g. within E = Mc^2, the defined maximal
velocity of c must never be exceeded otherwise the
entire proposition stands refuted. Lower values
of c as a maximand are logically sound
but stand refuted. These can can constitute
logically sound models but such an
oversimplified model cannot validy
replace or contest the theory it was
simplified from. If no term
within E =Mc^2 was a constant then
Einstein's equation remains mathematically
sound but irrational. Such an equation cannot
represent a valid proposition for the
physical sciences.
I repeat: unless Hamilton's Rule contains
at least one constant value, as a STAND
ALONE FITNESS ACCOUNTING DEVICE used for
over 50 years to measure when OFA can
evolve, it remains _irrational_. This
means that it does not matter if the
mathematics is correct, the rule is
NOT sufficient, as it stands, to
measure when OFA can evolve.
> NAS:-
> It is a mathematically
> proven fact - what more needs to be done?
JE:-
I repeat: mathematics is NOT a science
so that alone, it cannot prove/refute
anything about NATURE.
Just a mathematical proof does NOT
constitute a valid theory about
ANYTHING WITHIN NATURE. Hamilton's
Rule, as you have admitted is just
a mathematically correct concept.
This does NOT mean it is a biological
proven concept. To become a
rational biological accounting
device the total fitness of the
actor has to become fully restored
to Hamilton's Rule to provide the
rule with a frame of reference for
fitness.
John Edser
> > > NAS:-
> > > Evidently not that simple, because noone else in this newsgroup has a
> > > clue as to what you are on about.
> > JE:-
> > Popper suggested that only refutable theories
> > of nature are valid.
> JMcG:-
> You obviously misunderstood Popper.
> Why don't you refer to Popper's actual words?
JE:-
Popper's epistemology only
concerns the process of refutation.
He disallowed verification.
If you can quote Popper to
suggest that his
epistemology was not based on
refutation then this would be
similar to producing a quote
from Mendel that his genetics
was not based on heritable genes
or Darwin's theory of evolution
was not based on natural selection.
John Edser
> > > > JE:-
> TT:-
> Mass is a constant?!?
> If so what is its value? ;-)
JE:-
Mass can be partitioned and remain a
constant. The starting value of (m) must remain
exactly the same as its finishing value when no
mass is added or subtracted. Only mass can reduce
or increase mass and absolutely nothing else, i.e.
no set of variables exist that can increase
or decrease mass using Newtonian Mechanics
but they can exist within Special Relativity.
Here mass varies with velocity reducing the
concept of mass from a Newtonian constant to
just Einstein's variable.
> > JE:-
> > If you read my posts I have emphasised
> > that mathematical expressions that do
> > not directly include any constant term
> > within the expression must imply one,
> > i.e. refer back to one that does include
> > such a term if they are RATIONAL. They
> > can remain LOGICALLY correct without
> > a constant term or referring back to an
> > expression that does have a constant but
> > this does not mean such expressions
> > are rational. Only RATIONAL theories
> > of nature can be tested to refutation.
> TT:-
> So: is the second law of thermodynamics
> "RATIONAL"?
> It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
> constants I can see: it's expression is
> usually of the form delta-S > 0.
> ...and yet it is easy to imagine the
> second law being false - i.e. it is
> a testable piece of physics.
JE:-
The 2nd law can be usefully sketched
out as:-
Time's Arrow --> stuff goes wrong --> Entropy
Entropy represents a maximand of physics
where entropy must always be maximised.
Local entropy decreases caused by living
systems are paid for by local increases.
Thus life is 100% neutral to the entropy
maximand. This being the case Darwin's
maximand fitness does not contradict
physics.
> > JE:-
> > Hamilton's rule:
> > 1) Has no constant term.
> > 2) Does not refer back to
> > any expression that does have
> > a constant term. [...]
> TTQ:-
> So what?
JE:-
1) The view becomes just a non refutable
over simplified model of a fully refutable
theory where the non refutable model becomes
misused to contest and win against the
refutable theory it was simplified from.
2) Without (at the very least) one
constant term representing a maximand
fitness, organism fitness mutualism (OFM)
cannot be separated from organism fitness
altruism (OFA) because just a 100% relative
comparison of rb to c using subtraction
is not sufficient to discriminate between
them.
Illustration:
If you are an investment advisor and used
the following rule to suggest when to invest
in one of two competing companies:
Invest in A when A>B
where A and B represent the net worth of
two competing companies at just
random points in time, your advice would
be hopelessly irrational. Only the TOTAL
profits these competing companies earned over
a full financial year can represent rational
advice because, like any horse race, losers
can suddenly becomes winners and vice versa,
at the finishing line. Therefore only the
finishing line result matters. Darwinism
provides an exact, refutable finishing line
but gene centric Neo Darwinism does not.
The rule can only measure what
the sign of c looks like when
fitness accounting is incomplete.
The cost c may happen to look like
altruism because c remains positive
at the moment, or it may change to look
like mutualism because c has changed
to becomes negative. What happens
"at the moment" is not a rational
measure of OFA or OFM. The only measure
that matters is what the state of
the sign of c is after ALL the fitness
of the actor has been included within
the rule. For the rule as it stands
this is impossible because a large
baseline fitness m has been
deleted from the rule.
> TT:-
> That says absolutely nothing about
> whether it is correct or not.
JE:-
It says everything about whether a proposition
is a rational and thus refutable theory warranting
scientific investigation. Non rational propositions
reduce science to counting how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin, measuring phrenology
bumps on the head or condemning witches. Because
mathematics can count such mythical objects does
not mean angles, phrenology or witches
have suddenly become rational propositions.
> TT:-
> Plenty of accurate statements don't need to have constants in them.
JE:-
Accuracy is not testability.
See above.
> TT:-
> For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> I throw three dice rather than two.
> That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.
JE:-
Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
by approximation. It is a guessed constant
that allows the rationality of probability.
The guessed maximand in your example is the
largest probability that you will throw a six.
Without this maximand which will approach
a constant value the more you test it,
the whole thing is just irrational.
> TT:-
> The notion that an equation having no constants in it indicates a problem
> with the theory it represents is completely misguided.
JE:-
No, it is misguided to suggest that
logical propositions that have
no constant or maximal/minimal value
(existing or implied) can represent
a rational concept.
EKurtz
>> > > (1) Not a single constant is represented within
>> > > the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
>> > > Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
>> > > i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
>> > > sciences any rational mathematical expression must
>> > > refer back to at least one constant term in order
>> > > to make any sense. [...]
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote
>> > Very funny.
>> > I note that:
>> > F = ma;
>> > ...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.
>>
>> JE:-
>> I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
>>
>> Within Newtonian mechanics
>> Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
>> which in this case is simply implied by
>> acceleration [...]
>
> Mass is a constant?!?
>
> If so what is its value? ;-)
What he probably means is that, for a given dynamical problem governed by
the expression F = ma, the value of m is predefined at the outset and does
not vary under the Newtonian model. This is actually dead wrong; eg, F = ma
applies to a jet plane taking off; since the plane is burning fuel, and fuel
contributes to m, m is not a constant but a monotonically decreasing
function of time. Since the pilot is also steadily increasing the thrust of
the jets, F is also a function of time, so (ignoring air and tire
resistance) we have
F(t) = m(t)*a
so the differential equation for instantaneous velocity v is
dv/dt = F(t)/m(t)
=======================================
He also wrote:
> Within Newtonian mechanics
> Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
> which in this case is simply implied by
> acceleration (a) because:
>
> a = (change in v)/t
This is also not true, unless a is constant. If a is not constant (eg the
motion of an object falling under gravity through a viscous medium) then the
differential form
a = dv/dt
must be used.
> This very basic assumption of Newtonian
> mechanics was refuted by the Michealson-Morely
> experiment.
Wrong again; the MM experiment established that the speed of light is the
same for all observers.
Einstein's special theory of relativity
> was just a refinement of the so called Galileian
> transformation:
Wrong again; the transformation of coordinates that explains the results of
the MM experiment was due to Lorentz and Fitzgerald, not Einstein. Einstein
developed the Special Theory using the LF transformation as a starting
point.
John Edser
"EKurtz" <NoJ...@ForgetIt.com> wrote:-
> >> > > JE:-
> >> > > (1) Not a single constant is represented within
> >> > > the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
> >> > > Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
> >> > > i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
> >> > > sciences any rational mathematical expression must
> >> > > refer back to at least one constant term in order
> >> > > to make any sense. [...]
> >> > TT:-
> >> > Very funny.
> >> > I note that:
> >> > F = ma;
> >> > ...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.
> >> JE:-
> >> I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
> >> Within Newtonian mechanics
> >> Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
> >> which in this case is simply implied by
> >> acceleration [...]
> > TT:-
> > Mass is a constant?!?
> > If so what is its value? ;-)
> EK:-
> What he probably means is that, for a given dynamical problem governed by
> the expression F = ma, the value of m is predefined at the outset
> and does
> not vary under the Newtonian model.
JE:-
All of Newtonian mechanics depends
of mass and time as abolute and not
relative _assumptions_. This means that
mass can be partitioned but only
mass can add or subtract mass
(similarly for time).
Each expression can only alter m or t
using additions or deletions of m and t.
For t, only additions are valid.
Employing -t is logical but not rational.
This is because a maximand cannot be negative.
> EK:-
> This is actually dead wrong;
> eg, F = ma
> applies to a jet plane taking off; since the plane is burning
> fuel, and fuel
> contributes to m, m is not a constant but a monotonically decreasing
> function of time. Since the pilot is also steadily increasing the
> thrust of
> the jets, F is also a function of time, so (ignoring air and tire
> resistance) we have
> F(t) = m(t)*a
> so the differential equation for instantaneous velocity v is
> dv/dt = F(t)/m(t)
JE:-
The above simply proves that EK is
indeed, a competent mathematician but
not competent scientist.
Jets are not the only objects
that can have forces applied to them
where the loss of fuel has nothing
to do with the logic discussed, anyway.
If you just throw a stone its mass must
remain a constant otherwise Newtonian
Mechanics stands refuted. Einstein
proved this was indeed, the case.
> > JE:-
> > Within Newtonian mechanics
> > Mass (m) must remain constant with velocity
> > which in this case is simply implied by
> > acceleration (a) because:
> >
> > a = (change in v)/t
> EK:-
> This is also not true, unless a is constant. If a is not constant (eg the
> motion of an object falling under gravity through a viscous
> medium) then the
> differential form
> a = dv/dt
> must be used.
JE:-
The above does not matter in any way to
the argument that at least one constant
that represenets a maximand value must
exist for physics to be rational.
> > JE:-
> > This very basic assumption of Newtonian
> > mechanics was refuted by the Michealson-Morely
> > experiment.
> EK:-
> Wrong again; the MM experiment established that the speed of light is the
> same for all observers.
JE:-
EK's argument remains irrational.
Originally, the only way you could "established that
the speed of light is the same for all observers"
was to establish that c remains the _maximal_ velocity
of light in a vacuum for observers. Originally,
no way existed of putting different observers into
large enough velocities or measure the tiny time dilation
at different velocities for many different observers. All
that could be done is prove that c did not change with
a supposed aether as Newtonian Mechamics predicted
that it must otherwise Newton stood refuted.
> > EK:-
> > Einstein's special theory of relativity
> > was just a refinement of the so called Galileian
> > transformation:
> EK:-
> Wrong again; the transformation of coordinates that explains the
> results of
> the MM experiment was due to Lorentz and Fitzgerald, not
> Einstein. Einstein
> developed the Special Theory using the LF transformation as a starting
> point.
JE:-
In simple terms all the Galileian
transformation means is that
Galileo reversed cause and effect
by suggesting the sun was stationary
and not the earth. In effect he simply
transformed the stationary position
of the sun relative to the earh as
a new maximand. Previously the stationary
position of the earth had been a
maximand so he reversed their rational
postion within the same logical argument.
The same process applies to the transformation
of Newtonian physics to Special Relativity
theory. In Newton's view m and t were
maximands but c was just a variable.
In the transformation of Newton to
Special Relativity these were exactly
reversed: m and t became varaibles and
c a maximand.
My sincere regards,
Jim McGinn
> > > > NAS:-
> > > > Evidently not that simple, because noone else in this newsgroup has a
> > > > clue as to what you are on about.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Popper suggested that only refutable theories
> > > of nature are valid.
>
> > JMcG:-
> > You obviously misunderstood Popper.
> > Why don't you refer to Popper's actual words?
>
> JE:-
> Popper's epistemology only
> concerns the process of refutation.
> He disallowed verification.
>
> If you can quote Popper to
> suggest that his
> epistemology was not based on
> refutation then this would be
> similar to producing a quote
> from Mendel that his genetics
> was not based on heritable genes
> or Darwin's theory of evolution
> was not based on natural selection.
My point, you evasive twit,
[moderator's note: Now, now. Play nice, boys. - JAH]
is that you are not
accurately reflecting Popper's thinking/words.
You've created your own little scientific fantasy
world and you delude yourself into believing that
you're getting away with it (making sense) by the
fact that you don't fully comprehend (or care to
fully comprehend) what Popper (or Darwin or Mendel
for that matter) actually thought/said.
When I suggest that you actually employ Mendel's
words I'm not doing this because I want to open a
discussion with you about your impression of what
Popper said/meant. I'm doing it so that your
terminological sloppiness does further add to your
delusion.
Jim
Tim Tyler
Yes - and what about when mass is added or subtracted
as - for instance - in a space rocket?
F = ma applies equally well to space rockets as
other objects (though of course you have to integrate).
> > TT:-
> > So: is the second law of thermodynamics
> > "RATIONAL"?
> > It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
> > constants I can see: it's expression is
> > usually of the form delta-S > 0.
> > ...and yet it is easy to imagine the
> > second law being false - i.e. it is
> > a testable piece of physics.
>
> JE:-
> The 2nd law can be usefully sketched
> out as:-
>
> Time's Arrow --> stuff goes wrong --> Entropy
>
> Entropy represents a maximand of physics
> where entropy must always be maximised.
> Local entropy decreases caused by living
> systems are paid for by local increases.
> Thus life is 100% neutral to the entropy
> maximand. This being the case Darwin's
> maximand fitness does not contradict
> physics.
At the end of all this, I'm still not clear
about whether you agree that the second law of
thermodynamics has no constants in it - and
therefore is not testable science -
according to your world view.
> > TT:-
> > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.
>
> JE:-
> Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> that allows the rationality of probability.
> The guessed maximand in your example is the
> largest probability that you will throw a six.
> Without this maximand which will approach
> a constant value the more you test it,
> the whole thing is just irrational.
So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
in it? Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?
I'm afraid I can't easily see the constant you are referring to.
Maybe you are referring to the six itself?
If so, we will have to redo the experiment - after scrubbing off the
numbers and painting the faces of the dice different colours.
John Edser
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Popper suggested that only refutable theories
> > > > of nature are valid.
> > > JMcG:-
> > > You obviously misunderstood Popper.
> > > Why don't you refer to Popper's actual words?
> > JE:-
> > Popper's epistemology only
> > concerns the process of refutation.
> > He disallowed verification.
> > If you can quote Popper to
> > suggest that his
> > epistemology was not based on
> > refutation then this would be
> > similar to producing a quote
> > from Mendel that his genetics
> > was not based on heritable genes
> > or Darwin's theory of evolution
> > was not based on natural selection.
> JMcG:-
> My point, you evasive twit,
> [moderator's note: Now, now. Play nice, boys. - JAH]
> is that you are not
> accurately reflecting Popper's thinking/words.
> You've created your own little scientific fantasy
> world and you delude yourself into believing that
> you're getting away with it (making sense) by the
> fact that you don't fully comprehend (or care to
> fully comprehend) what Popper (or Darwin or Mendel
> for that matter) actually thought/said.
JE:-
The onus of proof is on you and not me.
Your use of hopeless invective strengthens
the case against you.
Everything I have stated re: Darwin, Mendel
and Popper is ENTIRELY BASIC and fully
refutable. Please provide quotes from any of
them that refute anything I have stated
about any of them.
_________________________________________________
If you can't even understand the BASICS of
Popper, Darwin and Mendel then that is your problem.
I have absolutely no intention of attempting
teach them to you because your mind remains
fixed. As I stated I would welcome a formal
paper written by yourself and submitted to
sbe for review because myself (and I guess almost
everybody else here) have absolutely no idea what
you are talking about. Your view that an infinite
number of fitness levels exist within nature
remains utterly incomprehensible. OTOH my
view that just one, single, level of fitness
exists (or is even required) is not only
easily comprehended it can be tested to
refutation. I have outlined an experiment
that can make this test. To be able to make
such a test you have to firstly understand
what a point of refutation is. I strongly
suggest that you re-read anything by Popper
to find out and then communicate it in your
own words for the benefit of sbe readers.
__________________________________________________
Regards,
John Edser
Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org>
> > > > JE:-
> > > > I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
> > > > Within Newtonian mechanics Mass (m) must
> > > > remain constant with velocity which in this
> > > > case is simply implied by acceleration [...]
> > > TT:-
> > > Mass is a constant?!?
> > > If so what is its value? ;-)
> > JE:-
> > Mass can be partitioned and remain a
> > constant. The starting value of (m) must remain
> > exactly the same as its finishing value when no
> > mass is added or subtracted.
> TT:-
> Yes - and what about when mass is added or subtracted
> as - for instance - in a space rocket?
> F = ma applies equally well to space rockets as
> other objects (though of course you have to integrate).
JE:-
A force does not have to carried within a
rocket as a fuel that is reduced in mass to
produce the force e.g. just throwing a stone.
The fact that the mass of the fuel in the
rocket becomes less as it burns has
absolutely nothing to do with the problem.
> > > TT:-
> > > So: is the second law of thermodynamics
> > > "RATIONAL"?
> > > It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
> > > constants I can see: it's expression is
> > > usually of the form delta-S > 0.
> > > ...and yet it is easy to imagine the
> > > second law being false - i.e. it is
> > > a testable piece of physics.
> > JE:-
> > The 2nd law can be usefully sketched
> > out as:-
> > Time's Arrow --> stuff goes wrong --> Entropy
> > Entropy represents a maximand of physics
> > where entropy must always be maximised.
> > Local entropy decreases caused by living
> > systems are paid for by local increases.
> > Thus life is 100% neutral to the entropy
> > maximand. This being the case Darwin's
> > maximand fitness does not contradict
> > physics.
> TT:-
> At the end of all this, I'm still not clear
> about whether you agree that the second law of
> thermodynamics has no constants in it - and
> therefore is not testable science -
> according to your world view.
JE:-
Any maximand can be represented as a
constant within a mathematical expression.
The fact that entropy must always be maximised,
no exceptions, means that entropy is
always increasing. In a mathematical
expression this could be represented
as a constant.
> > > TT:-
> > > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.
> > JE:-
> > Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> > by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> > that allows the rationality of probability.
> > The guessed maximand in your example is the
> > largest probability that you will throw a six.
> > Without this maximand which will approach
> > a constant value the more you test it,
> > the whole thing is just irrational.
> TT:-
> So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
> p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
> Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
> in it? Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?
JE:-
The constant just represents a proposed maximand for the
problem which in this case is the largest probability
that you will throw a six. Your stated aim was to maximise
the chance of throwing a six. Without this teleological
act the action becomes irrational. Applying statistics
in just a random way is uttery pointless. A mind
is not required to produce a maximand but
a maximand is required to produce a mind. In
nature, natural maximands only simulate teleological
acts. A naive mind requires a god because maximands
(which remain entirely hidden to such a mind) seem to
act like a god.
Hamilton's Rule deleted the maximal fitness
of the actor which represented a refutable
Darwinian maximand fitness via the common
Neo Darwinian process of modeling
over-simplification. Since the
rule contains no other maximand and has always
been employed as a stand
alone fitness accounting device no other
maximand is even implied. This being the
case Hamilton's rule remains irrational
and is misused to measure when organism
fitness altruism can evolve.
Jim McGinn
> my
> view that just one, single, level of fitness
> exists (or is even required) is not only
> easily comprehended it can be tested to
> refutation.
The phrase, "tested to refutation." Is a nonsense
phrase. It doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't
mean anything to anybody, including yourself as you've
demonstrated many times over with your inability to
explain it rationally. Instead you argue that it is
something Popper said/claims/argues. Unfortunately for
you (and unlike yourself it seems) I've studied Popper.
I know he's never used the phrase, "tested to
refutation." I'm calling your bluff. Show us Popper's
words, you ET (Josh is forcing me to abbreviate).
> I have outlined an experiment
> that can make this test. To be able to make
> such a test you have to firstly understand
> what a point of refutation is.
Don't wait for an invitation from me. Go ahead and
perform your stupid test, whatever it is.
> I strongly
> suggest that you re-read anything by Popper
> to find out and then communicate it in your
> own words for the benefit of sbe readers.
I think this is something you should do John. You
drop his name enough. Don't you think that if you
are to be expected to step up to the plate and become
a professional scholar that you should be required to
abide by the same rules that all professional scholars
must abide. Don't you feel a responsibility to quote
Popper accurately rather than restating his words to
promote the impression that he's said something he
really hasn't said?
Jim
Tim Tyler
So: the second law of thermodynamics is a piece of valid
science - because it contains a constant expression -
and the constant expression is entropy?
Is that /really/ your position?
> > > > TT:-
> > > > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > > > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > > > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > > > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> > > by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> > > that allows the rationality of probability.
> > > The guessed maximand in your example is the
> > > largest probability that you will throw a six.
> > > Without this maximand which will approach
> > > a constant value the more you test it,
> > > the whole thing is just irrational.
>
> > TT:-
> > So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
> > p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
> > Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
> > in it? Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?
>
> JE:-
> The constant just represents a proposed maximand for the
> problem which in this case is the largest probability
> that you will throw a six.
The above statement - i.e.:
p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
...doesn't mention probabilities of throwing a six. It deliberately
leaves open the question of how many sides the dice have. They could be
12-sided, 20 sided - or 60 sided - that's not specified in the equation -
so the chance of throwing a six doesn't seem to come into the issue.
John, your position on the issue of constants in science
is not just unorthodox, it's wrong.
Since you've apparently managed to produce a constant out of
nowhere in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, what's
stopping you whistling one up in the case of Hamilton's rule?
John Edser
Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:-
> > JE:-
> > Any maximand can be represented as a
> > constant within a mathematical expression.
> > The fact that entropy must always be maximised,
> > no exceptions, means that entropy is
> > always increasing. In a mathematical
> > expression this could be represented
> > as a constant.
> TT:-
> So: the second law of thermodynamics is a piece of valid
> science - because it contains a constant expression -
> and the constant expression is entropy?
> Is that /really/ your position?
JE:-
No. My position was and remains, entropy is
_constantly_ increasing. This can be refuted
by anybody who constructs a perpetual motion
machine.
> > > > > TT:-
> > > > > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > > > > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > > > > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > > > > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to
> > > > > experimental testing.
> > > > JE:-
> > > > Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> > > > by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> > > > that allows the rationality of probability.
> > > > The guessed maximand in your example is the
> > > > largest probability that you will throw a six.
> > > > Without this maximand which will approach
> > > > a constant value the more you test it,
> > > > the whole thing is just irrational.
> > > TT:-
> > > So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
> > > p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
> > > Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
> > > in it? Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?
> > JE:-
> > The constant just represents a proposed maximand for the
> > problem which in this case is the largest probability
> > that you will throw a six.
>snip<
>TT
> ...doesn't mention probabilities of throwing a six. It deliberately
> leaves open the question of how many sides the dice have. They could be
> 12-sided, 20 sided - or 60 sided - that's not specified in the equation -
> so the chance of throwing a six doesn't seem to come into the issue.
JE:-
You suggested: "I am more likely to roll at least
one six if I throw three dice rather than two.
That statement has no constants in it". My
reply was that it does have constants within it
because of the phrase "I am more likely to roll
at least one six". The words "more likely" requires
a maximand which could be represented by a constant
term. You are maximising the chances of
rolling "at least one six" using certain
alternatives. This being the case you
are implicitly employing a maximand as
a probability to measure which alternative
was the better one. Without such a maximand
you just end up using statistics randomly
which I am sure you would agree would be
entirely useless because it is utterly
pointless.
> TT:-
> John, your position on the issue of constants in science
> is not just unorthodox, it's wrong.
JE:-
You remain in error.
A maximand appears in _every_ rational argument,
no exceptions where any maximand can be represented
within a mathematical expression as a constant.
However, much of the time basic maximands
are only implied because they are obvious. If
you re-examine the error you made in your reply re:
the physics of a rocket reducing mass only because
the fuel was burnt (EK made the same error), you
will see that you entirely missed mass a maximand
constant as conjectured by Newton but refuted by
Einstein because it was obvious.
> TT:-
> Since you've apparently managed to produce a constant out of
> nowhere in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, what's
> stopping you whistling one up in the case of Hamilton's rule?
JE:-
Hamilton et al are whistling into the wind.
The only constant that can allow the rule to
make rational sense is the total fitness of the
actor. This BASIC constant was simply removed
when the baseline fitness m was deleted.
It can be shown that the only case of proven
organism fitness altruism that exists within
the rule was deleted by the process of
modelling over simplification.
rb-c>m
Larry Severson
function. If the subject is carefully thought out you can search there, and
widen the search to the body of the posts if your interest extends that far.
Re the comment about professionals, I think you are probably right, also I
think that cross discipline communication is one of the main problems for
professional scientists and the newsgroups may be a step in the right
direction. As has been remarked, professional journals are often not freely
accessible on the net.
"Tim Tyler" <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message
news:cnbr08$30dq$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Maurice Barnhill <m...@udel.edu> wrote or quoted:
>> Tim Tyler wrote:
>> > Maurice Barnhill <m...@udel.edu> wrote or quoted:
>
>> >>There is no point in going through the effort of writing up your
>> >>ideas understandably unless you want to convince someone that the
>> >>idea is correct or at least clever. Who do you want to convince?
>> >> The logical ultimate target is the people who have thought most
>> >>carefully about the general area of knowledge your idea
>> >>addresses. These people are in current times mostly (although
>> >>not entirely) professionals, and professionals are very, very
>> >>unlikely to pay attention to anything not in the refereed
>> >>literature.
>> >
>> > In my experience, this is completely untrue. I can think of
>> > numerous highly talented individuals in their fields who have
>> > participated in usenet in their time.
>>
>> There are a few here, but how many? Compare that to the number
>> who read any decent journal on evolution.
>
> You seem to be comparing readers with authors. Surely not a fair
> comparison: the readers generally outnumber the authors.
>
> Also, s.b.e. may not be the idea group for this comparison. It
> is moderated - and has a substantial posting delay - and thus it
> is difficult to hold a conversation in real time here. Other groups
> attract greater proportions of experts. sci.crypt and
> comp.compression spring to mind.
>
>> > I don't think professionals as a class are blind to these advantages -
>> > and I don't think its correct to say that they fail to take advantage
>> > of them.
>>
>> They are also not blind to the low signal to noise ratio. It is
>> much easier to overcome that elsewhere.
>
> Often, I find it harder to find things I'm interested in in
> conventional journals. They typically lack decent search facilities -
> and searching for what you are interested in is often critical.
>
>> > Even before the internet, much interaction between scientists was
>> > *not* in the peer reviewed literature. Check the letters of
>> > Charles Darwin - for example.
>>
>> The corresponding medium is EMail, not usenet. EMail has been
>> used a lot since even before there was an internet proper.
>
> If I want feedback about a theory, I use usenet - not email.
>
> With email, I have to mail everybody I want feedback from -
> and emails which request responses can be a bit intrusive.
>
> Usenet is much better for that sort of thing - nobody is
> obliged to reply, and many people get to look at your theory.
>
>> >>If nothing else, they don't have time to read
>> >>everything and the refereeing processes weeds out most of the
>> >>nonsense while losing very little of the valuable stuff. Very
>> >>rarely some valuable stuff is lost, but the amount of work
>> >>required to find it elsewhere when it doesn't reach the standard
>> >>literature is impossible to undertake.
>> >
>> > Fortunately, filtering out irrelevant chaff can be done passably well
>> > dynamically by computer programs - which can track references to the
>> > document in question.
>>
>> But computers cannot filter nearly as well as referees can.
>> Referees can even filter out weak contributions from normally
>> sensible people, or even better can induce people to do a better
>> job on their writeup than they would do otherwise. The
>> refereeing process wastes the time of 1-3 people, not hundreds.
>
> Material is reviewed on usenet as well. You get to see who
> is critical of the theory - and often their reasoning about why
> it is wrong.
>
> Reviewers can't suppress publication of the original messages though.
> That's a very positive thing - it means nobody gets censored.
Peter F
to be mislabeled) thread. This kind of naming-neglect certainly increases "newsgroup noise".
Peter
<snipped example of what I was referring to>