I confess I am a bit bewildered here. Did I miss a memo from Claude?
Nick
*From:*Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *glen
*Sent:* Thursday, August 7, 2025 3:39 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor.
Here is Perplexity's assessment of Claude's analysis of your attempt
to buttress group selection. Claude's analysis is path dependent (as
always). And a critical part of the prompt-pathway is my fascination
with the claims against evolution made by (even more ignorant than
me) Intelligent Design advocates (IDers). A significant problem with
biologists' attempts to *charitably* address issues raised by IDers
is that the IDers are not humble enough to learn what *working*
evolutionary biologists actually *do*. Claude was charitable to you,
Nick, too in saying that your work is perhaps too philosophical
and/or metaphorical to be directly relevant to current work in
evolutionary biology. So my own conclusion (as incompetent as it is)
might be that your paper probably applies well as a case to study in
a theory of metaphor, but is largely irrelevant to evolutionary
biology. That's OK. But as Dave points out, we want to be clear about
the domain we're in: a theory of metaphor *or* hypothesis formulation
in biology. I claim we shouldn't conflate those two domains.
Anyway, here's Perplexity's assessment of Claude's claims:
1. Gardner (2015): Mathematical Resolution of Thompson’s Ambiguities
*Claim:* Gardner’s work rigorously separates individual and group
contributions to evolutionary change, resolving Thompson’s “flock”
ambiguity with the Price equation.
*Is Citation (Gardner 2015) Appropriate?*
* Yes. Gardner (2015) explicitly develops a genetical theory of
multilevel selection and uses the Price equation to mathematically
decompose group vs. individual effects, addressing foundational
issues of operationalizing group selection.^1_1
<https://academic.oup.com/jeb/article/28/2/305/7381362>
*Improvement:* Citation is appropriate and robust for this claim.
2. Simon et al. (2013): General Mathematical Solution for
Multilevel Selection
*Claim:* Simon et al. (2013) unify multilevel population processes
with mathematical modeling, clarifying group “parents” via explicit
group reproduction and composition.
*Is Citation Appropriate?*
* Yes. Simon et al. (2013) address the need for explicit multilevel
event modeling and use continuous-time Markov chains to clearly
distinguish group- and individual-level events, directly tying into
both conceptual and mathematical ambiguities.^1_3
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23730751/>
3. Price (1970/1972): Foundational Price Equation
*Claim:* The Price equation provides a recursive partitioning formula
for selection at any level, allowing for formal group fitness
definition.
*Is Citation Appropriate?*
* Entirely correct. Price’s original and follow-up work establish
the equation’s centrality. See Price (1970) and Price (1972), both
cited broadly as the mathematical basis for partitioning selection at
multiple levels.^1_5 <https://www.nature.com/articles/227520a0>
4. van Veelen et al. (2012, 2014): Mathematical Non-Equivalence
of Frameworks
*Claim:* van Veelen and collaborators demonstrate critical
limitations, showing group selection is not always reducible to
inclusive fitness or the Price equation.
*Citations:* van Veelen (2012), van Veelen (2014).^1_6
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21839750/>
* Correct and highly relevant: both papers provide modern
mathematical counter-examples and directly engage with the limits of
equivalence between approaches.
5. Traulsen and Nowak (2006): Stochastic Group Formation Model
*Claim:* Group structure can emerge naturally from population
structure; offers a mechanistic, not arbitrarily-imposed, solution
for group selection modeling.
*Citation:* Traulsen & Nowak (2006).^1_8
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16829575/>
* Accurate: Their model lets groups arise dynamically rather than
being defined a priori, fulfilling the intended rhetorical point.
6. Hamilton (1964a,b) & Queller (2011): Inclusive Fitness Theory
and Extensions
*Claim:* Hamilton’s “rb>c” rule sidesteps group boundary issues.
Queller generalizes to “kin, kith, kind,” separating individual and
social effects quantitatively.
*Citations:* Hamilton (1964), Queller (2011).^1_9
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100298108>^1_11
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519364900396>
* Both are strongly appropriate. Hamilton founded inclusive fitness
theory and Queller explicitly expands it to broader social
contexts.^1_10
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Genetical_Evolution_of_Social_Behaviour>
7. Gardner (2015) and Structured Populations: Unresolvable Class
Structures
*Claim:* Gardner (2015) demonstrates that group decomposition is
sometimes impossible in highly structured populations, revealing new
analytical tensions.
*Citation:* Gardner (2015).^1_2
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25475922/>
* Supported: Gardner discusses “irreconcilable classes” and the
challenges of meaningful within- and between-group covariance
calculations in structured settings.
8. Marshall (2011) vs. van Veelen et al. (2012): Ongoing Debate
on Framework Equivalence
*Claim:* Marshall argues for, van Veelen against, universal
equivalence of group selection/inclusive fitness (formal equivalence
controversy).
*Citations:* Marshall (2011), van Veelen (2012).^1_12
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21839750/>^1_6
<http://web.evolbio.mpg.de/~garcia/preprints/08.pdf>
* Accurate and well-chosen citations. The Marshall review discusses
equivalence claims; van Veelen et al. provide mathematical dissent.
9. Fletcher & Zwick (2007), Nowak (2006), Hilbe et al. (2018):
Explicit Parameterization via Game Theory
*Claim:* Game theory resolves ambiguities by making group formation,
structure, and trait attribution explicit in the model.
*Citation:* Nowak (2006), Hilbe et al. (2018).^1_8
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16829575/>
* Nowak’s “five rules” for the evolution of cooperation are the
field’s standard reference for mechanistic, parameterized modeling.
* Hilbe et al. (2018) extends classical models for information flow
and flexible group boundaries; relevant as cited.
10. Wade (1976, 1977), Philson et al. (2025): Empirical Approaches
*Claim:* Wade’s experiments operationally define groups and fitness,
Philson’s fieldwork on wild marmots uses social network methods for
group boundaries and traits.
*Citation:* Wade (1976), Philson et al. (2025).^1_8
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16829575/>
* Citation to Wade is historically foundational and warranted.
* Philson et al. (2025) (if published as stated) would be highly
relevant for contemporary empirical methodology.
11. Wynne-Edwards (1962): Historically Important, Theoretically
Ambiguous
*Claim:* Wynne-Edwards raised group-level explanations, often
ambiguous, but some cases may be valid under modern theory.
*Citation:* Wynne-Edwards (1962).
* Correct for historical reference; less so for modern resolution,
but that is acknowledged in the content.
Conclusion: Citation Audit
* *Most citations are accurately and specifically applied to the
claims made.* No clear mismatches requiring replacement were detected
for major rhetorical points.
* Pivots like the Price equation, the debate on equivalence
(Marshall/van Veelen), and modern empirical evolution studies all use
canonical and robust literature.
*If a citation is missing or weak*—for example, if you wish to cite a
specific field study for social network-based group delineation and
cannot access Philson et al. (2025)—recent field network analyses in
wild animals (see Farine & Whitehead, 2015, “Constructing, conducting
and interpreting animal social network analysis”) would serve as an
alternative.
Summary Table: Citation Appropriateness
*Theoretical Point*
*Citation(s)*
*Appropriateness/Relevance*
*Replacement Needed?*
Mathematical formalization/Price equation
Gardner (2015), Price (1970, 1972)
Excellent
No
General theory of multilevel processes
Simon et al. (2013)
Strong
No
Inclusive fitness and boundary issues
Hamilton (1964a,b), Queller (2011)
Field-standard
No
Equivalence/non-equivalence debate
Marshall (2011), van Veelen (2012, 2014)
Specifically relevant
No
Mechanistic/game-theoretic models
Nowak (2006), Hilbe et al. (2018)
Industry standard
No
Empirical/operational definition (beetle experiments, wild networks)
Wade (1976), Philson et al. (2025)
Foundational/contemporary
No (unless Philson unavailable)
Historical ambiguity/group adaptation
Wynne-Edwards (1962)
Canonical for controversy
No
*Recommendation:* Your bibliography is thoroughly curated and
defensible for each major rhetorical or theoretical point in the
analysis. If more topical or current empirical works are needed,
specifically for fieldwork using social networks, cite Farine &
Whitehead (2015) as a supplement to the Philson reference if necessary.
On 8/5/25 11:10 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Dear Colleagues in FRIAM,
Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to
ignore Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am
working at. It always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle
in front of me some enticing topic so I must scream and put my
fingers in my ears to keep focus on my work. So it was that when I
decided I must fish or cut bait on entropy or it would take me to my
grave, that almost immediately you-guys started not one but two
conversations close to my heart: on the centrality of metaphor to
science and on the group selection controversy.
A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together
in a paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the
Group Level. There are two things about this paper that make it
salient for me. The first is that I think it is the best paper I
ever wrote. The second is that for each of the two people whom I
most hoped to reach when I wrote it, D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober,
it is a piece of crap. In it, I try to show that the problem with
metaphors is not with their use in scientific thinking: on the
contrary, it is with their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors need to be
worked in a systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of poetic
exuberance. This lesson I try to teach by working the natural
selection metaphor in a systematic way to show that if it had been
treated seriously in the first place, the whole dispute about group
selection might have been avoided. Thus the paper is not only
arrogant, but meta-arrogant.
Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do
anything to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I
simply am such a person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in
the hope that it will have some value to you within the context of
your two discussions.
Mumble,
Nick
