john edser

JE:-
A 100% relatively based argument using just conditional measures as to who
is and who is not drunk cannot know who is drunk and who is sober because no
frame of reference exists. EITHER Jim declares himself relatively sober
compared everybody else who he defines to be drunk OR Jim is defined to be
drunk relative to everybody else who choose to declare themselves to be more
sober than Jim. Edser just states that he will empirically determine who is
drunk and who is sober using an introduced constant as a REQUIRED frame of
reference: a breathalyzer. Hamilton's Rule was and remains just a 100%
relative argument without a breathalyzer so it cannot tell unconditional
altruism from unconditional selfishness which remain the only non minced
selectee fitnesses within the rule.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@tpg.com.au

joesp

Science is not a game that's won or lost on a technicality, John. It's not
about proofs and semantics. It's about the piecing together of evidence and
observations to form theories. Those theories then stand up to logical
examination and testing until someone disproves them. If you have evidence
and rationale to disprove Hamilton's Rule, publish a paper or enlist the
help of others whom you can convince with your arguments. It appears your
arguments here have gained little traction, so I wish you luck on that.

jim mcginn

It's already been done.
<snip>

Jim