Origin of fitness - origin of meaning

Quoted message said:

JM:- Michod suggests that the key fact about the rise of a
new level of selection is that it creates a new kind of
"fitness".

JE:- Whatever way you define fitness, it must be able to be
measured because fitness represents the only objective
measure of what can determine when a form is naturally
selected, or not. More simple measures of fitness that can
be refuted and can verify observations of nature must be
tested before more the more complex ones, if science is to
remain efficient. If a more simple view can explain nature
in a testable way compared to a more complex view, then the
more complex is pushed to the end of the que using Occam's
Razor. Thus to move on to mostly multi levels of selection
in preference to the Darwinian single level of the one,
fertile organism level of selection, Darwinism must stand
refuted. This is not the case. Until it is, it can be
validly argued that limited time and resources are being
wasted on more complex views, especially when they almost
entirely dominate the Darwinian, simple view, which they
manifestly do.

Quoted message said:

JM:- In fact, his chapter on the origin of life is
entitled "The origin of fitness". In Michod's view, the
origin of fitness from non-fitness is not fundamentally
more difficult or mysterious that its origin from lower-
level kinds of fitness. In fact, it may be easier to
explain, because the origin of every level of fitness
after the first is made more difficult by "conflict" among
the fitness interests of the lower level entities and
"conflict" between lower level interests and the interests
of the emerging higher level interests. Thus, the
emergence of new levels of fitness requires the invention
of new "conflict mediation" mechanisms.

JE:- I ran a search of firstly sbe, then all groups and
finally the entire internet for the phrase: "independent
levels of fitness" Only my own posts seem to turn up. Reduce
this to "independent levels" or "fitness independence",
within news groups nothing much turns up except my posts re:
evolution. Any rational discussion about "conflict
mediation" must firstly tackle this basic issue, yet it
appears to be soundly evaded by all and sundry.

Is it not self evident that only independent levels of
selection require "conflict mediation"? Does only myself
reason that dependent levels of select have no other choice
but to be selected at the one level of selection,
simultaneously? Just to start any discussion on levels of
selection you must be able to distinguish between
independent and dependent levels. To suggest that such a
difference exists within nature (not just within simplified
models), both contradictory types of levels must be testable
against nature. Is it not perfectly clear that any single
level of selection theory of nature does not need to make
such a distinction this being one of the reasons why it is
easier to test? Unless multi level selection theory can
provide a test that can validly separate independent levels
of selection from dependent levels of selection, multi unit
selectionists are not proposing anything that _can_ validly
contest Darwinian theory (exactly as Darwin wrote it). So
what is the justification for the plethora of multi unit
theories (and models derived from them by oversimplification
of each parent theory)? The possibility that people find
them more interesting seems to me to be the only answer.
Perhaps they find Darwinism boring simply because they do
not fully understand it.

Quoted message said:

JM:- "Fitness" can also be seen to be the fundamental
idea, because it permit biologists to reason from final
cause. Teleology is forbidden to all other scientists.

JE:- "Teleology" is only a way we visualise how an absolute
assumption rules a proposition, making all the variables
subject to it.

Quoted message said:

JM:- Michod points out that many of the cases of the
emergence of new kinds of fitness that he discusses
(organisms from naked genes, eukariotes, multicellularity,
eusocial super-organisms) are also "major transitions" in
the sense of Maynard Smith and Szatzmarie (sp?).

JE:- Are these proposed emergent fitness levels, dependent
or independent?

Quoted message said:

JM:- What about the other "major transitions". It occurs
to me that these are cases of the emergence of new kinds
of "meaning" (the genetic code, language). Which idea
maybe restores the problem of the origin of life to its
rightful place as THE fundamental mystery in biology. The
origin of life is the only major transition in which we
got both a new kind of fitness and a new kind of meaning
simultaneously. "Meaning" has its own philosophical
interest. It permits biologists to reason from formal
cause, a practice that is not forbidden to other
scientists, but one which is rarely useful to them.

JE:- Teleology only appears in biology because a Darwinian
form cannot be selected to reduce its own absolute fitness.
If it could be, Darwinism (exactly as Darwinism wrote it)
stands refuted. This being the case, Darwinian forms are all
forced to maximise the number of fertile forms they
reproduce into one population no matter what. Neo Darwinists
seem not to understand this basic of Darwinism. Thus the
automatic maximisation of Darwinian fitness only gives the
impression that nature knows what it is doing and does have
some end in view.

Many Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

"John W Edser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [snip]

Quoted message said:

JE:- I ran a search of firstly sbe, then all groups and
finally the entire internet for the phrase: "independent
levels of fitness" Only my own posts seem to turn up.
Reduce this to "independent levels" or "fitness
independence", within news groups nothing much turns up
except my posts re: evolution.

This would seem to indicate either that "independence" is
your own personal word for a concept that other people
discuss under a different name, or that it is a word for a
concept that no one else considers. I think that both
theories capture a piece of the truth, though I do think it
is a little weird to use the word "independent" for a status
that only one entity can achieve - all other entities being
relegated to "dependent" status. [snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JM:- Michod points out that many of the cases of the
emergence of new kinds of fitness that he discusses
(organisms from naked genes, eukariotes,
multicellularity, eusocial super-organisms) are also
"major transitions" in the sense of Maynard Smith and
Szatzmarie (sp?).

JE:- Are these proposed emergent fitness levels, dependent
or independent?

I hesitate to attempt to answer since I am very unsure what
"independent" means in your writing, but I will try. I
believe that Michod, if he wished to avoid unnecessary
controversy with you, would agree that in normal times,
there is only one fitness level that really matters.
However, he would insist that there must have been some non-
normal times in the past - times of transition. Before the
transition, say the transition to multicellularity, the only
level of fitness that mattered was the independent cell
level. After the transition, the only level of fitness that
mattered was the multi-cellular organism level. During the
transition, there must have been two fitnesses that operated
concurrently. Michod feels that it is important to
understand these freakish, unusual situations in which two
levels of fitness are both important - these situations
created the world we live in. Furthermore, I think that he
would be very uncomfortable, as I am, with the way you set
up your question as a dichotomy - "dependent or
independent?" To the extent that the words have any meaning
at all, they should be seen as the poles of a spectrum of
intermediate possibilities, not as an either/or choice.

PostB1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- I ran a search of firstly sbe, then all groups and
finally the entire internet for the phrase: "independent
levels of fitness" Only my own posts seem to turn up.
Reduce this to "independent levels" or "fitness
independence", within news groups nothing much turns up
except my posts re: evolution.

Quoted message said:

JM:- This would seem to indicate either that
"independence" is your own personal word for a concept
that other people discuss under a different name, or that
it is a word for a concept that no one else considers. I
think that both theories capture a piece of the truth,
though I do think it is a little weird to use the word
"independent" for a status that only one entity can
achieve - all other entities being relegated to
"dependent" status.

JE:- I am not using the word "independent", "for a status
that only one entity can achieve - all other entities being
relegated to "dependent" status," , I was simply arguing
that when more than one independent level of selection
exists they _must_ contest. This is not the case for
dependent levels of selection, i.e. they must not contest
because they are all selected simultaneously at just one
fitness level. Surely this is obvious?

Quoted message said:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JM:- Michod points out that many of the cases of the
emergence of new kinds of fitness that he discusses
(organisms from naked genes, eukariotes,
multicellularity, eusocial super-organisms) are also
"major transitions" in the sense of Maynard Smith and
Szatzmarie (sp?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Are these proposed emergent fitness levels,
dependent or independent?

Quoted message said:

JM:- I hesitate to attempt to answer since I am very
unsure what "independent" means in your writing, but I
will try.

JE:- Jim, how could I be any clearer? Surely it is evident
that when _more_ than just one fitness level is proposed to
exist then at least two possible states now exist re: their
relationship. EITHER each level is selected individually so
that all these independently selected levels have no other
choice but to contest each other OR they are all selected
together at just one level, simultaneously, i.e.
dependently. These two states represent testable
contradictions of each other such that either one or the
other but not both can validly said to be operating within
any causative supposition

Quoted message said:

JM:- I believe that Michod, if he wished to avoid
unnecessary controversy with you, would agree that in
normal times, there is only one fitness level that really
matters. However, he would insist that there must have
been some non-normal times in the past - times of
transition.

JE:- I would agree with him on this point. However, without
explicitly describing, at the very least, the two
contradictory processes of fitness level dependence and
independence, he is not providing any framework to even pose
a valid question, let alone seek some sort of answer.

Quoted message said:

JM:- Before the transition, say the transition to
multicellularity, the only level of fitness that mattered
was the independent cell level. After the transition, the
only level of fitness that mattered was the multi-cellular
organism level. During the transition, there must have
been two fitnesses that operated concurrently. Michod
feels that it is important to understand these freakish,
unusual situations in which two levels of fitness are both
important - these situations created the world we live in.

JE:- The question is, how can you evolve a _independent_
level of selection to become just a _dependent_ level of
selection? This is an enormous problem that has yet to be
tacked because nobody even sees it as big a problem. How can
the process of natural selection allow an independent level
of selection to be selected to become dependent?

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, I think that he would be very uncomfortable,
as I am, with the way you set up your question as a
dichotomy - "dependent or independent?" To the extent that
the words have any meaning at all, they should be seen as
the poles of a spectrum of intermediate possibilities, not
as an either/or choice.

JE:- Dependent and independent levels are _contradictions_.
Thus they set a stage to separate out testable ideas of
fitness levels and how they may have evolved. Without such
contradictory extremes, discussion of the evolution of multi
levels of selection within nature is reduced to just non
testable mush.

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

I snipped most of the post represented below to focus on the
claim it makes.

in article [email hidden], John W Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 4/19/04 5:03 PM:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Dependent and independent levels are
_contradictions_.

GH This is not true. These terms describe two ends of a
continuum, so most or all (I would argue for "all"😉
comparisons of real systems are only dependent/independent
by degree. The false dichotomy might have some heuristic
value, but should be recognized as essentially false if one
wants to make this assumption for the sake of modeling.

Quoted message said:

JE Thus they set a stage to separate out testable ideas of
fitness levels and how they may have evolved. Without such
contradictory extremes, discussion of the evolution of
multi levels of selection within nature is reduced to just
non testable mush.

I disagree. I also have not seen a persuasive argument even
supporting the heuristic value of assuming this false
dichotomy at this stage of development in evolutionary
theory. Indeed, it seems to me that the field of
evolutionary biology has matured to the point where we can
profitably put this false dichotomy behind us and embrace
the reality of independence by degree.

Guy

"John W Edser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

PostB1

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> JM:- Michod points out that many of the cases of the
> emergence of new kinds of fitness that he discusses
> (organisms from naked genes, eukariotes,
> multicellularity, eusocial super-organisms) are also
> "major transitions" in the sense of Maynard Smith
> and Szathmary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Are these proposed emergent fitness levels,
dependent or independent?

Quoted message said:

JM:- I hesitate to attempt to answer since I am very
unsure what "independent" means in your writing, but I
will try.

JE:- Jim, how could I be any clearer? [snip]

After your explanations in this post, I understand the
concept much better, and we can clear up my remaining
misunderstandings when I eventually am ready to resume
discussion of "nested sets".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JM:- I believe that Michod, if he wished to avoid
unnecessary controversy with you, would agree that in
normal times, there is only one fitness level that
really matters. However, he would insist that there must
have been some non-normal times in the past - times of
transition.

JE:- I would agree with him on this point. However,
without explicitly describing, at the very least, the two
contradictory processes of fitness level dependence and
independence, he is not providing any framework to even
pose a valid question, let alone seek some sort of answer.

Oh, in his papers he most definitely provides explicit
descriptions of processes. These are quite mathematical, and
he seems to have a different mathematical model applicable
to each major transition. I have not yet penetrated any of
them, so I can't describe them. But I will note that the
only thing they seem to have in common is the notion that
conflict exists, and is resolved by some kind of mediation.

Quoted message said:

JE:- The question is, how can you evolve a _independent_
level of selection to become just a _dependent_ level of
selection? This is an enormous problem that has yet to be
tacked because nobody even sees it as big a problem.

To the contrary, this seems to be THE hot topic in pop gen
these days and it has been since the 1990s. Michod is far
from the only person working on this. Though, it may be that
no one frames the problem in exactly your terms.

Unfortunately for us laymen, there don't seem to have been
any semi-popular books on the topic (other than "Major
Transitions"😉 and no comprehensive review articles that I am
aware of. Can anyone correct me on this?

[email hidden] (Jim Menegay) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I believe that Michod, if he wished to avoid unnecessary
controversy with you, would agree that in normal times,
there is only one fitness level that really matters.
However, he would insist that there must have been some
non-normal times in the past - times of transition. Before
the transition, say the transition to multicellularity,
the only level of fitness that mattered was the
independent cell level. After the transition, the only
level of fitness that mattered was the multi-cellular
organism level. During the transition, there must have
been two fitnesses that operated concurrently. Michod
feels that it is important to understand these freakish,
unusual situations in which two levels of fitness are both
important - these situations created the world we live in.

I would just note that the existence of two competing
fitness modes is still seen in slime molds (dictyostelium),
the myxomycetes, and the myxobacteria. I don't know if
Michod discusses these in his book.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Post B3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Dependent and independent levels are
_contradictions_.

Quoted message said:

GH This is not true. These terms describe two ends of a
continuum, so most

or

Quoted message said:

all (I would argue for "all"😉 comparisons of real systems
are only dependent/independent by degree.

JE:- Are you assuming that ONLY "dependent/independent by
degree" exists within nature? If so, why, and if not, what
differences that are not by degree do you explicitly
nominate? Please provide examples re: evolutionary theory.

Quoted message said:

GH:- The false dichotomy might have some heuristic value,
but should be recognized as essentially false if one

wants

Quoted message said:

to make this assumption for the sake of modeling.

JE:- It is GH who is making "assumptions for the sake of
modelling" and not JE because GH and not JE was making gross
over simplifications of testable theory. Dr Hoelzer is on
record as suggesting that all models are testable. However,
Prof. Felsenstein suggests the no models are testable (the
exact opposite). Is this just another difference in degree
or a contradiction? Dr O'Hara suggests that no substantial
difference excists between a theory, a hypothesis or a
model. Allowing all three points of view as just another
difference by degree allows Neo Darwinistic theory anything
at all in the name of science. Welcome to the Mad Hatter's
Tea Party....

What appears to be false is Dr Hoelzer's lack of any
dichotomy at all. One is required to deduce just a
difference by degree . It is not possible to argue that only
a difference by degree exists without a reference point
which is _assumed_ to be _fixed_ allowing at least _one_
contradictory difference. If all levels of selection are
only different by degree what is the reference point that
allows you to suggest such a thing? You have to assume that
a dicotomy exists somewhere and then falsify it to prove
that this is indeed the case. Only then can you validly
claim that no dichotomy existed. You cannot assume no
dicotomy at all and then falsify that because you cannot
falsify any claim that no dichotomy exists. Since your
stated view does not provide any dichotomy at all to
falsify, it cannot be tested. It seems to me that you have
thrown out the "tyranny" of Popperian refutation in order to
preserve your own position which IMHO, is logically
untenable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE Thus they set a stage to separate out testable ideas
of fitness levels

and how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they may have evolved. Without such contradictory
extremes, discussion

of the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolution of multi levels of selection within nature is
reduced to just

non

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testable mush.

Quoted message said:

GH:- I disagree. I also have not seen a persuasive
argument even supporting

the

Quoted message said:

heuristic value of assuming this false dichotomy at this
stage of development in evolutionary theory.

JE;- Wasn't the Darwinian argument that independent fertile
forms which are all, without exception, competing against
each other within discrete populations to maximise the total
number of fertile reproductions each leaves within one
population, such that the competition that must exist
between them causing natural selection and consequenly an
inevitable evolution of that population, "persuasive"?

Quoted message said:

GH:- Indeed, it seems to me that the field of evolutionary
biology has matured to the point where we can profitably

put

Quoted message said:

this false dichotomy behind us and embrace the reality of
independence by degree.

JE:- Using which reference point?

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

PostB4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> JE:- Are these proposed emergent fitness levels,
> dependent or independent?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JM:- I hesitate to attempt to answer since I am very
unsure what

"independent"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

means in your writing, but I will try.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Jim, how could I be any clearer? [snip]

Quoted message said:

JM:- After your explanations in this post, I understand
the concept much better, and we can clear up my remaining
misunderstandings when I eventually am ready to resume
discussion of "nested sets".

JE:- I look forward to a rigorous discussion of sets, both
intersecting and nested re: their application (or otherwise)
to evolutionary theory.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JM:- I believe that Michod, if he wished to avoid
unnecessary controversy with you, would agree that in
normal times, there is only one fitness level that
really matters. However, he would insist that there
must have been some non-normal times in the past -
times of transition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- I would agree with him on this point. However,
without explicitly describing, at the very least, the
two contradictory processes of fitness level dependence
and independence, he is not providing any framework to
even pose a valid question, let alone seek some sort of
answer.

Quoted message said:

JM:- Oh, in his papers he most definitely provides
explicit descriptions of processes. These are quite
mathematical, and he seems to have a different
mathematical model applicable to each major transition. I
have not yet penetrated any of them, so I can't describe
them. But I will note that the only thing they seem to
have in common is the notion that conflict exists, and is
resolved by some kind of mediation.

JE:- My point is, such models are just simplifications of
theories. Models do not really concern themselves with
contradictions allowing refutable lines in the sand but
theories must.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The question is, how can you evolve a _independent_
level of selection to become just a _dependent_ level of
selection? This is an enormous problem that has yet to
be tacked because nobody even sees it as big a problem.

Quoted message said:

JM:- To the contrary, this seems to be THE hot topic in
pop gen these days and it has been since the 1990s. Michod
is far from the only person working on this. Though, it
may be that no one frames the problem in exactly your
terms. Unfortunately for us laymen, there don't seem to
have been any

semi-popular

Quoted message said:

books on the topic (other than "Major Transitions"😉 and no
comprehensive review articles that I am aware of. Can
anyone correct me on this?

JE:- Nobody except you and me seems to want to discuss it
here. If this is "THE hot topic" but here it is THE non
topic, doesn't that tell you something........?

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

in article [email hidden], John W Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 4/22/04 4:36 PM:

Quoted message said:

Post B3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Dependent and independent levels are
_contradictions_.

Quoted message said:

GH This is not true. These terms describe two ends of a
continuum, so most

or

Quoted message said:

all (I would argue for "all"😉 comparisons of real systems
are only dependent/independent by degree.

JE:- Are you assuming that ONLY "dependent/independent by
degree" exists within nature?

I think that my assertion was clear. I said "most or all." I
did not assert that it must be "all", but that I was
prepared to argue that position. I will argue for the
extreme position from here on.

Quoted message said:

If so, why, and if not, what differences that are not by
degree do you explicitly nominate? Please provide examples
re: evolutionary theory.

It is so because every system in the universe communicates
(interacts) with its environment to some degree. Because I
am arguing that there are NO exceptions, any example of
anything will do. On the other hand, a single counter
example would undermine my extreme position, so take your
best shot.

Quoted message said:

From evolutionary theory I would point to genes,
organisms, species,

lineages, coevolved species complexes, ..., as examples.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- The false dichotomy might have some heuristic value,
but should be recognized as essentially false if one

wants

Quoted message said:

to make this assumption for the sake of modeling.

JE:- It is GH who is making "assumptions for the sake of
modelling" and not JE because GH and not JE was making
gross over simplifications of testable theory. Dr Hoelzer
is on record as suggesting that all models are testable.
However, Prof. Felsenstein suggests the no models are
testable (the exact opposite). Is this just another
difference in degree or a contradiction?

I do not think that Dr. Felsenstein and I disagree much
about the role of models in science. I think you have
obtained apparently contradictory statements from us in
different contexts and stitched them together making it look
like we have contradicted one another. So, I guess this is
another difference in degree.

Quoted message said:

Dr O'Hara suggests that no substantial difference excists
between a theory, a hypothesis or a model. Allowing all
three points of view as just another difference by degree
allows Neo Darwinistic theory anything at all in the name
of science. Welcome to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party....

[I wrote a nasty retort here and erased it for the sake of
civility.]

Quoted message said:

What appears to be false is Dr Hoelzer's lack of any
dichotomy at all. One is required to deduce just a
difference by degree .

I am just trying to get Nature right. If nature is not
dichotomous, then I take it as a compliment that my ideas
about it are also not dichotomous. If you want to
effectively argue against my position, you will have to make
the case that dichotomies are natural.

Quoted message said:

It is not possible to argue that only a difference by
degree exists without a reference point which is _assumed_
to be _fixed_ allowing at least _one_ contradictory
difference. If all levels of selection are only different
by degree what is the reference point that allows you to
suggest such a thing? You have to assume that a dicotomy
exists somewhere and then falsify it to prove that this is
indeed the case. Only then can you validly claim that no
dichotomy existed. You cannot assume no dicotomy at all
and then falsify that because you cannot falsify any claim
that no dichotomy exists. Since your stated view does not
provide any dichotomy at all to falsify, it cannot be
tested. It seems to me that you have thrown out the
"tyranny" of Popperian refutation in order to preserve
your own position which IMHO, is logically untenable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE Thus they set a stage to separate out testable ideas
of fitness levels

and how

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they may have evolved. Without such contradictory
extremes, discussion

of the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolution of multi levels of selection within nature is
reduced to just

non

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testable mush.

Quoted message said:

GH:- I disagree. I also have not seen a persuasive
argument even supporting

the

Quoted message said:

heuristic value of assuming this false dichotomy at this
stage of development in evolutionary theory.

JE;- Wasn't the Darwinian argument that independent
fertile forms which are all, without exception, competing
against each other within discrete populations to maximise
the total number of fertile reproductions each leaves
within one population, such that the competition that must
exist between them causing natural selection and
consequenly an inevitable evolution of that population,
"persuasive"?

Not if you put it this way. I did, on the other hand, find
Darwin's words quite persuasive. In any case, I see this as
entirely non-responsive to my statement. Where in this is
there an argument that assuming a false dichotomy has
heuristic value?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- Indeed, it seems to me that the field of
evolutionary biology has matured to the point where we
can profitably

put

Quoted message said:

this false dichotomy behind us and embrace the reality of
independence by degree.

JE:- Using which reference point?

You can use the reference point of comparison, which is
exactly why fitness only has meaning in the relative sense.
I know we disagree on this, and it is clear that neither of
us will yield on this point, so please don't bother
explaining your position on absolute fitness for the
umpteenth time.

Cheers,

Guy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Dependent and independent levels are
_contradictions_.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH This is not true. These terms describe two ends of a
continuum, so most

or

Quoted message said:

all (I would argue for "all"😉 comparisons of real systems
are only dependent/independent by degree.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Are you assuming that ONLY "dependent/independent by
degree" exists within nature?

GH:- I think that my assertion was clear. I said "most or
all." I did not assert that it must be "all", but that I was
prepared to argue that position. I will argue for the
extreme position from here on.

JE:- Differences by degree are OK only as long as they
exist within a proposition that _can_ be contradicted.
Surely this is just obvious? Such a situation requires an
absolute assumption which by definition, cannot be just a
difference in degree. I am not stating anything
revolutionary. Examples of absolute assumptions are very
common. You can’t be a bit pregnant and the speed of light
in a vacuum cannot exceed c. Only a clearly articulated,
_explicitly_ included absolute assumption can provide a
reference point for GH’s differences by degree. Without
such a reference point any difference by degree just
becomes a pointless hand waving exercise.

The phrase "most or all" allowed GH to evade refutation.
This "extreme position" provided a scientific viewpoint
because it allows a refutable position (which JE demands but
GH does not). My point is that only differences by
contradiction, i.e. not just differences by degree provide a
refutable position. Unless the proposition can be refuted we
have no hope of just understanding it, let alone testing it
against nature.

Quoted message said:

JE:- If so, why, and if not, what differences that are not
by degree do you explicitly nominate? Please provide
examples re: evolutionary

theory.

GH:- It is so because every system in the universe
communicates (interacts) with its environment to some
degree. Because I am arguing that there are NO exceptions,
any example of anything will do. On the other hand, a single
counter example would undermine my extreme position, so take
your best shot.

JE:- Please note that GH has _implicitly_ nominated
something that he assumes exists within nature which is not
just “different by degree” refuting GH’s stated position
that “there are NO exceptions” to the rule that ONLY
dependent /independent by degree exists within nature.
___________________________________________
The concept of “a system” is not different only by degree to
a non system so each system must be independently selected.
___________________________________________

GH seems to be arguing that just because “every system in
the universe communicates (interacts) with its environment
to some degree” then you can validly infer from this that
only “differences by degree” re: fitness dependence and
independence, exist within nature. GH’s inference is
incorrect because he does not distinguish between fitness
altruism and fitness mutualism. Here fitness altruism
provides fitness dependence but fitness mutualism only
provides fitness independence.

GH’s nominated interacting systems are not just different
by degree otherwise these systems would just blend
themselves out of existence. The non stated absolute
assumption within GH’s argument is “a system”, i.e. the
only thing within his assumption that does _not_ just
differ by degree is a system.

Previously GH only nominated the cell as a system within
the biological sciences. This means genes, organisms,
organism metapopulations, without exception, can only
differ by degree , i.e. are just groups of cells that only
differ by the number/type of cells that they contain. Thus
the only hard thing that we have to measure or count
FITNESS to enable us to test GH’s supposed difference by
degree are the number/type of cells that his difference by
degree is said to constitute. Yet, GH has not provided any
evolutionary theory that allows anybody to just count cells
to predict nature.

Quoted message said:

GH:- From evolutionary theory I would point to genes,
organisms, species, lineages, coevolved species complexes,
..., as examples.

JE:- I am confused. Are these examples of things that only
differ by degree or examples of things that do not only
differ by degree?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- The false dichotomy might have some heuristic value,
but should be recognized as essentially false if one
wants to make this assumption for the sake of modeling.

Quoted message said:

JE:- It is GH who is making "assumptions for the sake of
modelling" and not JE because GH and not JE was making
gross over simplifications of testable theory. Dr Hoelzer
is on record as suggesting that all models are testable.
However, Prof. Felsenstein suggests the no models are
testable (the exact opposite). Is this just another
difference in degree or a contradiction?

GH:- I do not think that Dr. Felsenstein and I disagree much
about the role of models in science. I think you have
obtained apparently contradictory statements from us in
different contexts and stitched them together making it look
like we have contradicted one another.

JE:- GH is implying (without evidence or justification!)
that I have misrepresented both GH and JF’s respective
positions on this basic and important issue. Since it is GH
who is accusing me without any justification at all of
misrepresentation then it is GH and not JE who must be very
specific re: these “different contexts” where GH and JF
agree and do not agree. Please supply both missing contexts.

GH:- So, I guess this is another difference in degree.

JE:- Indeed.. It is always easier to move the goal posts
to the ball than to attempt to kick the ball between the
goal posts.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Dr O'Hara suggests that no substantial difference
excists between a theory, a hypothesis or a model.
Allowing all three points of view as just another
difference by degree allows Neo Darwinistic theory
anything at all in the name of science. Welcome to the Mad
Hatter's Tea Party....

GH:- [I wrote a nasty retort here and erased it for the sake
of civility.]

JE:- If you were actually being civil, you would not have
mentioned this missing retort. The fact that you did means
you are attempting to be “uncivil” in a “civil” way, i.e.
have your civility cake and eat it too. It is called: post
modern epistemology.

Is everything only a difference by degree including truth
and untruth in the sciences? Does this include the
difference between justice and injustice including
differences between civility and uncivility?

What I wrote stands to reason and I do not withdraw one whit
of it. The three of you hold _contradictory_ positions, yet
no will exists to resolve your respective positions! Without
such a resolution nobody here, especially the non
professionals, can make any sense of Neo Darwinistic
evolutionary theory.

____________________________________________________
The public have the right to ask the professionals who post
here to be accountable for their actions/inactions. Either
oversimplified models are being misused within evolutionary
theory or they are not. The difference between use and
misuse is not just another difference by degree. I put it to
sbe readers that the professionals that post here are
_consistently_ evading answering the question re: model use
and misuse within Neo Darwinistic evolutionary theory.
_____________________________________________________

Quoted message said:

JE:- What appears to be false is Dr Hoelzer's lack of any
dichotomy at all. One is required to deduce just a
difference by degree .

GH:- I am just trying to get Nature right. If nature is not
dichotomous, then I take it as a compliment that my ideas
about it are also not dichotomous.

JE:- We are all “just trying to get Nature right”. The
argument here is about the scientific method that allows a
proposed truth of nature to be _independently_ tested.
Without a refutable position you just end up dictating what
you think nature might be. My point remains: unless you
begin by assuming nature is dichotomous you may never find
out that it was not, i.e. you have no other choice but to
invent and then refute, a proposed dichotomous position or
just dictate a non testable view.

Note that if nature is “not dichotomous” then no systems
(cells are your only defined system) can exist in nature,
i.e. nature just becomes a non testable miasma.

GH:- If you want to effectively argue against my position,
you will have to make the case that dichotomies are natural.

JE:- No at all. The only refutable position is an ASSUMPTION
that at least one dichotomy exists within what is being
discussed in nature. The topic under discussion is: multi
levels of fitness. In this discussion you have retired
fitness to just a hand waving exercise to support your own
position, i.e. reduced it to nothing anybody can count/
measure within nature just to suit yourself.

Quoted message said:

JE:- It is not possible to argue that only a difference by
degree exists without a reference point which is _assumed_
to be _fixed_ allowing at least _one_ contradictory
difference. If all levels of

selection

Quoted message said:

are only different by degree what is the reference point
that allows you to suggest such a thing? You have to
assume that a dicotomy exists somewhere and then falsify
it to prove that this is indeed the

case.

Quoted message said:

Only then can you validly claim that no dichotomy existed.
You cannot assume no dicotomy at all and then falsify that
because you cannot falsify any claim that no dichotomy
exists. Since your stated view does not provide any
dichotomy at all to falsify, it cannot be tested. It seems
to me that you have thrown out the "tyranny" of Popperian
refutation in order to preserve your own position which
IMHO, is logically untenable.

JE:- The above constitutes the meat of my argument. Why no
reply? What is the point of these exchanges if you
continually refuse to reply to any detailed argument
presented?

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

JE;- Wasn't the Darwinian argument that independent
fertile forms which are all, without exception, competing
against each other within discrete populations to maximise
the total number of fertile reproductions each leaves
within one population, such that the competition that must
exist between them causing natural selection and
consequenly an inevitable evolution of that population,
"persuasive"?

GH:- Not if you put it this way. I did, on the other hand,
find Darwin's words quite persuasive.

JE:- Do you deny that what I wrote above is just a very
explicit understanding of what Darwin wrote? Do you deny
that a reverse engineering test does exist to prove that
this is the case?

The test:- Natural selection can be halted within a
population by artificially forcing the total Darwinian
fitness of each parent competing against each other within
one population to always remains equal, i.e. the _total_
number of _fertile_ forms reproduced by each parent is
altered to remain equal over many generations. This test
provides a unique (i.e. the only) definitive verification
of what Darwin wrote and is the only possible way to stop
selection within one population for a period of time. Can
you name another? Also, it provides a test of the common
but unproven assumption that just random processes such as
mutation, meiosis or genetic drift can alone cause
evolution in nature. Processes like as genetic drift, which
can produce gene freq. changes are suggested (without any
proper controlled testing!) to produce evolution without
natural selection. It seems obvious to me that using this
this test, drift would only provide a faster dissipation of
the systems that were previously selected, i.e. drift on
its own cannot cause evolution even if drift can cause a
gene freq change. This brings into question the entire Neo
Darwinian notion of what evolution actually is: “any gene
freq. change in a deme”.

GH:- In any case, I see this as entirely non-responsive to
my statement. Where in this is there an argument that
assuming a false dichotomy has heuristic value?

JE:- I did respond. You did not like my response so you
just ignored it. I stated _explicitly_ that you have it
_entirely_ in reverse, i.e. it is you and not me who has
misused heuristics. Then again, the difference between a
heuristic and a non heuristic (use and misuse also?) is
just another “difference in degree” in your opinion, so
just about “anything goes”. Because of your continual non
dichotomous stance re: fitness, no resolution can exist
as to how to test supposed multi levels of selection
against nature.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- Indeed, it seems to me that the field of
evolutionary biology has matured to the point where we
can profitably put this false dichotomy behind us and
embrace the reality of independence by degree.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Using which reference point?

GH:- You can use the reference point of comparison, which is
exactly why fitness only has meaning in the relative sense.

JE:- It was Einstein that put this myth to rest. A absolute
frame of reference has to exist to compare anything within
it on just a relative basis.

If you are sitting in a train next to another and just one
of the trains moves, unless you have an ASSUMED stationary
reference point such as the platform, you cannot know which
train had moved relative to the other. The platform provides
an absolute frame of reference. Reference points constitute
an abolute assumption for a proposition. For Einstein this
is c: the maximal speed of light in a vacuum. For Darwinism
it was _implicitly_, the _total_ fitness of each parent
within one population. Without such an absolute reference
point no testable theory of nature exists within
evolutionary theory. Hamilton’s model rule did not contain
the total fitness of the donor so it had no hope at all of
differentiating organism fitness altruism (OFA) for the
donor (the view to be verified), from organism fitness
mutualism (OFM) (the view that refuted it)! If your view
cannot tell its verification from its refutation then you
are indeed, attending a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

Hamilton’s rule had no hope of supporting OFA within nature
yet it has been utterly misused by purporting to do exactly
that for over 50 years. Hamilton, just like anybody else,
cannot rationally exclude an ASSUMED fixed reference point
that cannot be just “a difference by degree”.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

Posting from Edinburgh U.K. (while on tour: with the Sydney
Zenith New Orleans Jazz Band)

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

in article [email hidden], John Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 4/28/04 10:31 AM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> JE:- Dependent and independent levels are
> _contradictions_.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH This is not true. These terms describe two ends of a
continuum, so most

or

Quoted message said:

all (I would argue for "all"😉 comparisons of real
systems are only dependent/independent by degree.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Are you assuming that ONLY "dependent/independent by
degree" exists within nature?

GH:- I think that my assertion was clear. I said "most or
all." I did not assert that it must be "all", but that I
was prepared to argue that position. I will argue for the
extreme position from here on.

JE:- Differences by degree are OK only as long as they
exist within a proposition that _can_ be contradicted.
Surely this is just obvious? Such a situation requires an
absolute assumption which by definition, cannot be just a
difference in degree. I am not stating anything
revolutionary. Examples of absolute assumptions are very
common. You can’t be a bit pregnant and the speed of light
in a vacuum cannot exceed c. Only a clearly articulated,
_explicitly_ included absolute assumption can provide a
reference point for GH’s differences by degree. Without
such a reference point any difference by degree just
becomes a pointless hand waving exercise.

The phrase "most or all" allowed GH to evade refutation.

I did not evade refutation. Rather, you failed to refute
my position.

Quoted message said:

This "extreme position" provided a scientific viewpoint
because it allows a refutable position (which JE demands
but GH does not). My point is that only differences by
contradiction, i.e. not just differences by degree provide
a refutable position. Unless the proposition can be
refuted we have no hope of just understanding it, let
alone testing it against nature.

Note that traditional statistics has been designed around
Popper's notion of refutation, and that it can only refute
by degree (the notorious P-value).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- If so, why, and if not, what differences that are
not by degree do you explicitly nominate? Please provide
examples re: evolutionary

theory.

GH:- It is so because every system in the universe
communicates (interacts) with its environment to some
degree. Because I am arguing that there are NO exceptions,
any example of anything will do. On the other hand, a
single counter example would undermine my extreme
position, so take your best shot.

JE:- Please note that GH has _implicitly_ nominated
something that he assumes exists within nature which is
not just “different by degree” refuting GH’s stated
position that “there are NO exceptions” to the rule
that ONLY dependent /independent by degree exists
within nature.
___________________________________________
The concept of “a system” is not different only by degree
to a non system so each system must be independently
selected.
___________________________________________

GH seems to be arguing that just because “every system in
the universe communicates (interacts) with its environment
to some degree” then you can validly infer from this that
only “differences by degree” re: fitness dependence and
independence, exist within nature. GH’s inference is
incorrect because he does not distinguish between fitness
altruism and fitness mutualism. Here fitness altruism
provides fitness dependence but fitness mutualism only
provides fitness independence.

After all these years of reading your posts using this
language, I still can't parse its meaning clearly enough to
judge the validity of this statement.

Quoted message said:

GH’s nominated interacting systems are not just different
by degree otherwise these systems would just blend
themselves out of existence.

I think that this is false in the context of dynamical
systems (like all of biology) in which the structure of the
interaction network is constrained
(e.g., by spatial configuration). Such systems generically
tend toward diversifying self-organization, not
blending. Your view, which I admit is still common due
to the legacy of Newton's conceptual framework, assumes
(falsely, IMHO) that the average condition (e.g., the
local neighborhood) is the actual condition for all
parts of the network. You can get away with this
simplification sometimes, but it is universally
(absolutely!) false. I think that you should be
concerned about in which contexts that assumption can
be very misleading.

Quoted message said:

The non stated absolute assumption within GH’s argument is
“a system”, i.e. the only thing within his assumption that
does _not_ just differ by degree is a system.

The emergence of a system is a process, so there is still
ambiguity as to the moment at which you would call it a
system. On the other hand, this is a non-linear threshold
event. Thresholds are somewhat fuzzy boundaries. I would
argue that ALL (and absolute assumption/prediction)
dynamical systems have fuzzy boundaries that appear crisp
(dichotomous) when you zoom out and more blurred (relative)
as you zoom in. If you zoom in on any boundary far enough,
they will eventually disappear altogether. I would push this
viewpoint even further and say that the crispness/fuzziness
of a boundary is more than a matter of observer perception.
In fact, the boundary does exist at one scale and
simultaneously does not exist at a much smaller scale. I'm
sorry if my (reality's?) mix of universal (absolute) and
relative phenomena is hard for you to understand or
incorporate into your particular view of science.

Quoted message said:

Previously GH only nominated the cell as a system within
the biological sciences.

I NEVER claimed that the cell is the only kind of
biological system.

Quoted message said:

This means genes, organisms, organism metapopulations,
without exception, can only differ by degree , i.e. are
just groups of cells that only differ by the number/type
of cells that they contain.

It emphatically does not mean this, and that should be clear
from this post and many others I have contributed over the
years, including the ones you have read and responded to.
Emergent entities, like species in phylogenetic context, are
largely hierarchically arranged. Cells are real systems, as
are organs, organ systems, organisms, ..., as are
organelles, ...

My view on entities like atoms, or rocks, has been evolving
lately. I no longer think of them as dissipative systems,
rather as temporary "entities" that are "phenotypic"
sticking points in the process of degradation.

Quoted message said:

Thus the only hard thing that we have to measure or count
FITNESS to enable us to test GH’s supposed difference by
degree are the number/type of cells that his difference by
degree is said to constitute. Yet, GH has not provided any
evolutionary theory that allows anybody to just count
cells to predict nature.

That would be a waste of time under my paradigm, which you
clearly misunderstand.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- From evolutionary theory I would point to genes,
organisms, species, lineages, coevolved species
complexes, ..., as examples.

JE:- I am confused. Are these examples of things that only
differ by degree or examples of things that do not only
differ by degree?

They do not only differ by degree. They are also
different in kind, are all real systems, and are
hierarchically related.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- The false dichotomy might have some heuristic
value, but should be recognized as essentially false if
one wants to make this assumption for the sake of
modeling.

Quoted message said:

JE:- It is GH who is making "assumptions for the sake of
modelling" and not JE because GH and not JE was making
gross over simplifications of testable theory.

In my view this is the exactly reverse of the situation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dr Hoelzer is on record as suggesting that all models are
testable. However, Prof. Felsenstein suggests the no
models are testable (the exact opposite). Is this just
another difference in degree or a contradiction?

GH:- I do not think that Dr. Felsenstein and I disagree
much about the role of models in science. I think you have
obtained apparently contradictory statements from us in
different contexts and stitched them together making it
look like we have contradicted one another.

JE:- GH is implying (without evidence or justification!)
that I have misrepresented both GH and JF’s respective
positions on this basic and important issue. Since it is
GH who is accusing me without any justification at all of
misrepresentation then it is GH and not JE who must be
very specific re: these “different contexts” where GH and
JF agree and do not agree. Please supply both missing
contexts.

The contexts are not missing. They are precisely the
contexts that YOU perceived in coming to your conclusion
that JF and I disagree. I am not going to waste my time
trying to reconstruct YOUR history. If YOU want to provide
the rest of the post (or paragraph from the post) from which
you took JF's comments, I can try to parse his meaning in
context and why his statement appeared to contradict my
position. Whether or not you find my analysis convincing, I
will continue to judge the conceptual consistency between
myself and JF based on my reading of his publications and
our personal conversations.

Quoted message said:

GH:- So, I guess this is another difference in degree.

JE:- Indeed.. It is always easier to move the goal posts
to the ball than to attempt to kick the ball between the
goal posts.

It is harder yet to accept and understand natural
ambiguities. I am less concerned with the goal posts you
want to erect for me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Dr O'Hara suggests that no substantial difference
excists between a theory, a hypothesis or a model.
Allowing all three points of view as just another
difference by degree allows Neo Darwinistic theory
anything at all in the name of science. Welcome to the
Mad Hatter's Tea Party....

GH:- [I wrote a nasty retort here and erased it for the
sake of civility.]

JE:- If you were actually being civil, you would not have
mentioned this missing retort.

Your right. I apologize. I was only able to moderate my
civility by degree.

Quoted message said:

The fact that you did means you are attempting to be
“uncivil” in a “civil” way, i.e. have your civility cake
and eat it too. It is called: post modern epistemology.

Call it what you want. I reject the "absolute" view of post
modernism absolutely; but this philosophical paradigm
includes aspects that I find to improve upon previous
paradigms anchored by absolute absolutism.

Quoted message said:

Is everything only a difference by degree including truth
and untruth in the sciences?

If you put it this way, then I think the answer is
generally YES. Scientific "truth" almost always rests on
assumptions, so scientific "truth" remains tenuous by
degree. The only exception that I know of, and I admit only
a superficial understanding of this issue, are the
universal truths deduced through a method like
renormalization group analysis.

Quoted message said:

Does this include the difference between justice and
injustice including differences between civility and
uncivility?

Absolutely.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- What appears to be false is Dr Hoelzer's lack of any
dichotomy at all. One is required to deduce just a
difference by degree .

GH:- I am just trying to get Nature right. If nature is
not dichotomous, then I take it as a compliment that my
ideas about it are also not dichotomous.

JE:- We are all “just trying to get Nature right”.

You seem much more concerned with forcing your views of
method onto the rest of us, than with getting Nature right.
I say this because I, and many others, have confronted you
with realities that cannot be effectively studied under the
constraints of your limited method, and you have never
expressed any concern about that. My point about trying to
match natural and perceived dichotomies is an example.

Quoted message said:

The argument here is about the scientific method that
allows a proposed truth of nature to be _independently_
tested. Without a refutable position you just end up
dictating what you think nature might be. My point
remains: unless you begin by assuming nature is
dichotomous you may never find out that it was not, i.e.
you have no other choice but to invent and then refute, a
proposed dichotomous position or just dictate a non
testable view.

It is a waste of time to erect dichotomies we believe to be
false, and then to refute them.

Quoted message said:

Note that if nature is “not dichotomous” then no systems
(cells are your only defined system) can exist in nature,
i.e. nature just becomes a non testable miasma.

False on so many levels. I previously, and again in this
post, have nominated many more systems in biology and in the
abiotic universe. They are emergent entities with real
boundaries that become fuzzy upon closer inspection. They
are largely hierarchical in relationship, and equally
largely independent in the coherence of their internal
mechanisms. There are many ways to test models derived from
this emerging theory. I have offered suggestions in the
past, but it was like posting to a brick wall.

Quoted message said:

GH:- If you want to effectively argue against my position,
you will have to make the case that dichotomies are
natural.

JE:- No at all. The only refutable position is an
ASSUMPTION that at least one dichotomy exists within what
is being discussed in nature. The topic under discussion
is: multi levels of fitness. In this discussion you have
retired fitness to just a hand waving exercise to support
your own position, i.e. reduced it to nothing anybody can
count/ measure within nature just to suit yourself.

I and others have provided much more than sufficient answers
to this false claim. I won't repeat myself here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- It is not possible to argue that only a difference
by degree exists without a reference point which is
_assumed_ to be _fixed_ allowing at least _one_
contradictory difference. If all levels of

selection

Quoted message said:

are only different by degree what is the reference point
that allows you to suggest such a thing? You have to
assume that a dicotomy exists somewhere and then falsify
it to prove that this is indeed the

case.

Quoted message said:

Only then can you validly claim that no dichotomy
existed. You cannot assume no dicotomy at all and then
falsify that because you cannot falsify any claim that no
dichotomy exists. Since your stated view does not provide
any dichotomy at all to falsify, it cannot be tested. It
seems to me that you have thrown out the "tyranny" of
Popperian refutation in order to preserve your own
position which IMHO, is logically untenable.

JE:- The above constitutes the meat of my argument. Why no
reply? What is the point of these exchanges if you
continually refuse to reply to any detailed argument
presented?

Been there, done that; why bother again?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE;- Wasn't the Darwinian argument that independent
fertile forms which are all, without exception, competing
against each other within discrete populations to
maximise the total number of fertile reproductions each
leaves within one population, such that the competition
that must exist between them causing natural selection
and consequenly an inevitable evolution of that
population, "persuasive"?

GH:- Not if you put it this way. I did, on the other hand,
find Darwin's words quite persuasive.

JE:- Do you deny that what I wrote above is just a very
explicit understanding of what Darwin wrote?

Explicit? Yes. Accurate? Not perfectly so. It is, however, a
fair summary.

Quoted message said:

Do you deny that a reverse engineering test does exist to
prove that this is the case?

What?

Quoted message said:

The test:- Natural selection can be halted within a
population by artificially forcing the total Darwinian
fitness of each parent competing against each other within
one population to always remains equal, i.e. the _total_
number of _fertile_ forms reproduced by each parent is
altered to remain equal over many generations. This test
provides a unique (i.e. the only) definitive verification
of what Darwin wrote and is the only possible way to stop
selection within one population for a period of time. Can
you name another? Also, it provides a test of the common
but unproven assumption that just random processes such as
mutation, meiosis or genetic drift can alone cause
evolution in nature. Processes like as genetic drift,
which can produce gene freq. changes are suggested
(without any proper controlled testing!) to produce
evolution without natural selection. It seems obvious to
me that using this this test, drift would only provide a
faster dissipation of the systems that were previously
selected, i.e. drift on its own cannot cause evolution
even if drift can cause a gene freq change. This brings
into question the entire Neo Darwinian notion of what
evolution actually is: “any gene freq. change in a deme”.

I have answered all of this before. I like the idea of your
test. I do not agree with your preconception of how the
results should be interpreted or the definition of evolution
you use in this description.

[snip]

Cheers,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer said:

in article [email hidden], John Edser
at [email hidden] wrote on 4/28/04 10:31 AM:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I did not evade refutation. Rather, you failed to refute
my position.

Quoted message said:

This "extreme position" provided a scientific viewpoint
because it allows a refutable position (which JE demands
but GH does not). My point is that only differences by
contradiction, i.e. not just differences by degree provide
a refutable position. Unless the proposition can be
refuted we have no hope of just understanding it, let
alone testing it against nature.

Note that traditional statistics has been designed around
Popper's notion of refutation, and that it can only refute
by degree (the notorious P-value).

Sorry to drift off-topic slightly, but I feel I have to
refute this.

In almost all circumstances, a statistician using a
Popperian scheme would try to refute H_1, the statistician's
alternative hypothesis (i.e. would propose the hypothesis
that something is happening). What significance testers do
is reality is try to refute the hypothesis that nothing is
happening, and use that as a corroboration of the Popperian
bold hypothesis.

On an historical note, I doubt that Neyman or Pearson would
have read Logic der Forschung - especially as it was
published 2 years after they had published their approach to
hypothesis testing!

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
+358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗ Journal of Negative
Results - EEB: jnr-eeb.orgjnr-eeb.orgOpen ↗

in article [email hidden], Anon. at
[email hidden] wrote on 4/30/04 8:14 AM:

Quoted message said:

Guy Hoelzer said:

in article [email hidden], John Edser
at [email hidden] wrote on 4/28/04 10:31 AM:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I did not evade refutation. Rather, you failed to refute
my position.

Quoted message said:

This "extreme position" provided a scientific viewpoint
because it allows a refutable position (which JE demands
but GH does not). My point is that only differences by
contradiction, i.e. not just differences by degree
provide a refutable position. Unless the proposition can
be refuted we have no hope of just understanding it, let
alone testing it against nature.

Note that traditional statistics has been designed around
Popper's notion of refutation, and that it can only
refute by degree (the notorious P-value).

Sorry to drift off-topic slightly, but I feel I have to
refute this.

In almost all circumstances, a statistician using a
Popperian scheme would try to refute H_1, the
statistician's alternative hypothesis (i.e. would propose
the hypothesis that something is happening). What
significance testers do is reality is try to refute the
hypothesis that nothing is happening, and use that as a
corroboration of the Popperian bold hypothesis.

I think you are nit picking here, but I don't want to start
a discourse on this issue.

Quoted message said:

On an historical note, I doubt that Neyman or Pearson
would have read Logic der Forschung - especially as it was
published 2 years after they had published their approach
to hypothesis testing!

Thanks for correcting my time table. I don¹t dispute your
historical sequence. However, I stand by my claim that
statistics only permits refutation by degree.

Guy

Quoted message said:

GH:- I think that my assertion was clear. I said "most or
all." I did not assert that it must be "all", but that I
was prepared to argue that position. I will argue for the
extreme position from here on.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Differences by degree are OK only as long as they
exist within a proposition that _can_ be contradicted.
Surely this is just obvious? Such a situation requires an
absolute assumption which by definition, cannot be just a
difference in degree. I am not stating anything
revolutionary. Examples of absolute assumptions are very
common. You can’t be a bit pregnant and the speed of light
in a vacuum cannot exceed c. Only a clearly articulated,
_explicitly_ included absolute assumption can provide a
reference point for GH’s differences by degree. Without
such a reference point any difference by degree just
becomes a pointless hand waving exercise.

Quoted message said:

snip the rest of GH's reply post, ONLY for now<

GH:- The above was my argument. It is simple to understand,
however, GH has never replied to
it. Differences by degree cannot be contradicted because you
can always alter the level of degree to evade the
contradiction. Here is a simple example using paint
pigment. Grey is just a difference in degree in the
amount of black and white pigment you mix. Thus
different shades of grey do not _contradict_ each other
they _compliment_ each other. The only contradiction
that exists for any shade of grey is: black or white.
Only black and white stand in contradiction to grey.
Without at these two _basic_ assumptions no grey exists.
Of course you can always suppose that black and white
are also, just shades of grey. However, such an event
only constitutes a _dictate_ because you can never
refute it (or uniquely verify it). Religion has used
such dictates about nature for as long a religion has
existed. Science is not a religion because science
provides testable suppositions that allow explicit
contradictions.

Unless you make a refutable proposition of what is "black"
and "white" the use of "grey" remains tribal dictate.
People who disagree about what is, and what is not, a shade
of grey will end up using violence to resolve the matter
because no refutable (or uniquely verifiable) prediction
exists when white and black are allowed as shades of grey.
Even if black and white did not actually exist in the
universe because everything was indeed, just a shade of
grey, we could never _know_ this is the case within the
sciences because it is _not_ a refutable proposition. In
the sciences we are forced to make at least one
contradictory stance of what something basic is, and is
not. The fact that only scientific suppositions make such a
stance (allowing them to be refuted) is a enormous
_strength_ and not a weakness. As different suppositions of
black and white become refuted the amount of useful grey
expands. This is because propositions of what black and
white is set limits to the shades of grey that can exist.
the better propositions allow more and not less, grey.
However, at no time is the concept that everything is just
a shade of grey testable, i.e. just a difference in degree.
If you wish to keep on expanding the amount of grey that we
know of, you have to keep refuting propositions of black
and white because there is no other way to expand grey. If
you suggest everything is grey then any expansion of grey
now becomes impossible, i.e. the useful productive increase
in the amount of grey simply, STOPS.

Unless we are gods, we can never know that _everything_ in
nature is just a difference in degree. Because we are
ignorant mortals we forced into just making guesses. These
guesses are either testable or not testable. Testability is
not just another difference in degree because when it is, no
test exists. Now any outrageous suggestion of what nature
might be, becomes as equally valid as the most rigorous
observations and theories induced from them. Until somebody
has the courage to put their neck on the block and suggest
an absolute _assumption_ of what they think nature is,
nothing of any note can happen. Tribal dictates just remain
exactly that until a refutable position,
i.u. a position of contradiction that is _not_ just a shade
of grey is put forward within a refutable scientific
theory of nature. Until definitions are provided within
a refutable theory as to what exactly, something _is_
and is _not_ within nature, tribal psychology will
cement a concept for an eternity no matter what it is,
i.e. truth can never evolve in that society until the
people who believe are beaten in battle by those that
believe something else.

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

in article [email hidden], John Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 5/6/04 10:44 AM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- I think that my assertion was clear. I said "most or
all." I did not assert that it must be "all", but that I
was prepared to argue that position. I will argue for the
extreme position from here on.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Differences by degree are OK only as long as they
exist within a proposition that _can_ be contradicted.
Surely this is just obvious? Such a situation requires an
absolute assumption which by definition, cannot be just a
difference in degree. I am not stating anything
revolutionary. Examples of absolute assumptions are very
common. You can’t be a bit pregnant and the speed of
light in a vacuum cannot exceed c. Only a clearly
articulated, _explicitly_ included absolute assumption
can provide a reference point for GH’s differences by
degree. Without such a reference point any difference by
degree just becomes a pointless hand waving exercise.

Quoted message said:

snip the rest of GH's reply post, ONLY for now<

JE:- The above was my argument. It is simple to
understand, however, GH has never replied to
it. Differences by degree cannot be contradicted because
you can always alter the level of degree to evade the
contradiction.

This would be no different than altering a model in danger
of refutation. THERE IS NO LOGICAL DIFFERENCE.

Quoted message said:

Here is a simple example using paint pigment. Grey is just
a difference in degree in the amount of black and white
pigment you mix. Thus different shades of grey do not
_contradict_ each other they _compliment_ each other.

They do neither in isolation. They only appear contradictory
or complimentary in the context of some sort of model.

Quoted message said:

The only contradiction that exists for any shade of grey
is: black or white.

No. Pure black and white are part of the continuum of
greyness. They are the extremes.

Quoted message said:

Only black and white stand in contradiction to grey.
Without at these two _basic_ assumptions no grey exists.

I disagree with this logic at every turn. I don¹t see
where you asserted any assumptions up to this point, and
the existence of grey does not depend either on
assumptions or the existence of black and white. If
nothing can exist in the absence of assumptions, then
nothing exists outside of your mind. This is a
scientifically untenable position, and the ultimate in post-
modern thinking, which you so often eschew.

Quoted message said:

Of course you can always suppose that black and white are
also, just shades of grey. However, such an event only
constitutes a _dictate_ because you can never refute it
(or uniquely verify it).

I agree. Black and white are extreme shades of grey based
on the definition of "grey". Definitions of terms like
this are largely arbitrary human constructs and not
subject to testing like physical phenomena. Such
definitions are essential, however, as heuristic devices
in the study of nature.

Quoted message said:

Religion has used such dictates about nature for as long a
religion has existed.

The definition of "grey" is not a dictate about nature.

I have snipped the rest of JE's post, which I consider to be
unfocused ramblings based on the hopelessly flawed
philosophy of science outlined above.

Cheers,

Guy