Thanks Nick, I will have to read your longer-form work. Your use of all this is so far from my own, and so far from any literature and user community that I work with or in, that I don’t even know what you mean different words to be doing in your sentences, and thus what you believe yourself to be asserting. (If I could track that much, I could then come back to whether I think the assertions “go through”, or under what analysis one would make such a judgment.)
Clearly this is going to be a matter of just blanking my mind (giant magnetostimulation of the brain) and submerging in your writing for a while, to try to “get a feel” for your language usage. Then come back to these short forms and see if I can follow them any better. Eric > On Apr 6, 2026, at 7:42, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > DES -- One urgent point. I asked George to look at our correspondence to see > what I was missing. He caught one thing immediately "Fitness causes > selection, selection causes fitness" is not necessarily a tautology nor do i > think of it as such. Its a virtuous circle, or "spiral" so long as > selection and fitness can be independently known. > > I apologise for wiring text that was open to that misinterpretation. > > N > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2026 at 5:39 AM Santafe <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> I’m kind of relieved that I posted “I promise I really will shut up” on Apr >> 1, before Gil’s brief blast of exasperation, which I kind of get. I think I >> should keep my word, as much as possible without being obnoxious. >> >> At the same time, thank you for taking the time to reply, including what I >> actually wrote, and responding to it in-frame. >> >> Your two papers are attached to the later email, too, so we have them. I >> will read if and as I am able. The abstracts sound like they make a much >> more normal reference to the routine work that people actually do, than many >> of the post-string here have (to me); so that is hopeful. >> >> I tried a couple of times to come up with some kind of reply, and decided it >> is hopeless. There is a perfectly good language to address the problem >> that, after we have identified and characterized traits, and observed that >> sometimes they change frequencies in populations, we don’t generally know at >> the outset whether there is something about the traits’ functions in >> organisms’ lives (in their population contexts) that is eligible to be a >> “cause” of that change in frequency. We would like to know, for which >> traits in what settings, variations in trait parameters result in variations >> in function performance that (through the vast noise of everything else that >> is going on too) poke through to result in changes in trait frequency. >> There are no tautologies in the statistical reduction that defines different >> components of change (among which one is fitness, though its definition is >> partly by convention), and there are no other problems than the ordinary >> problems of functional characterization and statistical analysis in figuring >> out which variations in trait parameters and functions correlate with >> changes in trait frequency robustly enough to be candidates for cause of the >> change in frequency. It’s all so terribly ordinary and understandable. >> >> Meanwhile, you have a program: to assert that there are some tautologies and >> some ambiguities etc. Therefore I understand that, since we can observe a >> field of people who get from problem statements to answers, by completely >> ordinary and conventional steps with standard methods, without tautologies, >> whatever those people are doing is simply irrelevant to your program. >> >> I will admit, so that it doesn’t just seem irritating, that at a half-dozen >> points below, I am sure that you are just throwing up verbal chaff and >> playing word games to try to make something that is actually completely >> ordinary and orderly “look” all mangled and messed up. But it doesn’t look >> that way to me. At every one of these, I trip over some string of words >> that looks like complete nonsense, which doesn’t make the idea we were on >> “look” like anything; it just veers away from the track of that idea to put >> a word game in its place. (An example: "success causes fitness, and that >> fitness causes success") It was after trying to call out two or three of >> these that I realized i need to just give up. I suspect you could follow an >> ordinary mathematical argument about as well as the next guy, and you just >> don’t want to. Thus anything I try to reply will just yield another round >> with the same form as this one. I will add to irritating the list, which is >> what I wanted to cut away from doing earlier. >> >> I appreciated your introduction of placeholders, and of course I am quite >> open to that kind of thing. Not so open to the Chalmers kind, which is >> defined as having _no_ added content from what our ordinary, understandable >> language, is already doing. I don’t know why you think you see a >> non-Chalmers-like placeholder here; but okay. >> >> So, is it the English who say: Please Proceed. >> >> I do hope you will be able to push through to the book you were writing. We >> accumulate all these unfinished efforts, and it is a shame if they can’t get >> to some safe harbor in some output. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 4, 2026, at 14:23, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> DES -- I hate to drag you back into our den and maul you some more but >>>> your last post was fascinating to me and so akin to difficulties we have >>>> had with Elliott Sober and difficulties I have had understanding entropy >>>> (ugh) that I want to pursue them with you further >>> >>> >>> --for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or >>> dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not >>> sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about >>> defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model >>> variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern work >>> to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. >>> >>> I am happy to have a variable with a name to represent that dimension. I >>> just think "fitness" is an appalling name for it. Call it selectedness. >>> Call it success. Just don't call it fitness or adaptedness or anything >>> that might confuse a reader into thinking that you have any information >>> about the morphological or behavioral synchrony of the organism with its >>> environment. The essence of D's theory is that success causes fitness, and >>> that fitness causes success. If one calls oneself a Darwinist it must be >>> because those connections between the two ideas are empirical, not logical. >>> >>> — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the >>> case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, >>> instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a >>> measurement unit? >>> >>> Indeed, we are >>> >>> Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of reproductive >>> success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the form of a name, >>> so there must be something it names, that is a kind of causal force >>> responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive success. And >>> since there is one name, there must be some one kind of causal force it >>> names. >>> >>> Well, if we do believe that the relative success of every genetic type of >>> organism is systematic then it has a cause. Now I suppose that it's >>> possible that each instance of success has a different cause, in which we >>> would have reduced Darwin's theory to, "whatever causes an animal's sucess >>> causes its success". But I think even FW would rate that a tautology. To >>> escape that bind, we have to find some class of relations that leads to >>> success which is other than the class that leads to failure. And to be a >>> proper Darwinian you have to at least be able to entertain the possibility >>> that selection would produce something other than fitness and vice versa. >>> >>> — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have >>> occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. >>> >>> Well, here we are. We stand before you. I have been making such a claim in >>> print for 56 years, so either I have managed to pull the wool over many >>> editors' and reviewr's eyes, or it has some resonance somewhere among >>> biologists. I hope calling it "bizarre" isn't the first step toward putting >>> your fingers in your ears and shrieking. >>> >>> . >>> It seems very similar to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying >>> that, since it has the shape of a name, there must be something it names. >>> >>> Well, exactly! The example I like to use is the "dormitive virtue"..Years >>> ago, before the dinosaurs, Lipton and I wrote a paper in which we talked >>> about such expressions that purport to be explanatory but which include a >>> reference to the explanandum within the explanans as "recursive". (eg. >>> life is caused by the Life Force) The dormitive virtue was a place-holder >>> for what came to be known as the very specific chemical properties of >>> morphine. The Moliere play makes fun of people who imagine that the >>> assignment of a placeholder has solved the problem. We thought of these >>> place holders as serving to keep the goal in sight while scientists looked >>> for it. Science consists a lot in filling in or dividing up these place >>> holders. The progress in the identification of the AIDS virus is a >>> wonderful example. See, if tempted, Comparative Psychology and the >>> recursive nature of filter explanations >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.clarku.edu%2ffacultyworks%2f66%2f&c=E,1,k4G28ruXzTMikjk22fWt55DQZBrY8oTBaFPZetykCEmKkrdW7Zgm_InoVrTc91PCgHYC1XjdS7pzs2zz_HaX2PnsGuZtad3L3YiDf1g2E2bBiY5y9m0Lp_g,&typo=1> >>> >>> To me, those are strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that >>> don’t have any semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s >>> “colorless green dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that >>> there was anything anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics >>> of lots of cases of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out >>> some vast taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That >>> could well be my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my >>> lack of empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about >>> who is in the world). >>> >>> Indeed. That would explain a lot. Please understand that I am a lifelong >>> unbeliever. I am not even an atheist. My family had no interest in >>> religion whatsoever. You might call me a religious Ignoramist. I have >>> never been cuffed on the ears by nuns. >>> >>> — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong >>> Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people >>> who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked about >>> Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined this >>> reading of what you were writing. >>> >>> Again, that explains a lot of our difficulties. But I beg to suggest that >>> there is a more generous reading. >>> >>> the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long Emily >>> Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what population >>> geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be left is >>> EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and which isn’t >>> interesting and wasn’t to your point. So, were you claiming that there are >>> biologists operating that way? And are there really biologists operating >>> that way?y >>> >>> Indeed there are. They are called comparative biologists, comparative >>> anatomists,comparative ethologists, comparative physiologists, anybody who >>> studies the form of classes of organisms in relation to their >>> circumstances. Natural design didn't get eliminated by Darwinism; it got >>> partially, and incompletely and in some cases wrongly explained by it. >>> Some effort needs to be expended in finding out the degree to which natural >>> design actually accounts for natural selection and vice versa. Please see >>> Toward a Falsifiable Theory of Evolution >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.clarku.edu%2ffacultyworks%2f67%2f&c=E,1,uEqHnsI2N6agATrwVIuvnLowDECLxZG4KT5Za_GJiyC2lUxcNNve9iY0ZctgPVn2cXHp3MIF_4h0exfyKRO9KdPS6nCz0uerbqjb5nNIWBw,&typo=1> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:17 PM Nicholas Thompson <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> DES -- I hate to drag you back into our den and maul you some more but >>>>> your last post was fascinting to me and so akin to difficulties we have >>>>> had with Elliott Sober and difficulties I have had understnding entropy >>>>> (ugh) that I want to pursue them with you further >>>> >>>> >>>> --for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or >>>> dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not >>>> sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about >>>> defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model >>>> variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern >>>> work to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. >>>> >>>> — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the >>>> case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, >>>> instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a >>>> measurement unit? Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of >>>> reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the >>>> form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of >>>> causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive >>>> success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of >>>> causal force it names. >>>> >>>> — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have >>>> occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. It seems very similar >>>> to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has >>>> the shape of a name, there must be something it names. To me, those are >>>> strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any >>>> semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless green >>>> dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was anything >>>> anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots of cases >>>> of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some vast >>>> taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could well be >>>> my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack of >>>> empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about who is >>>> in the world). >>>> >>>> — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong >>>> Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like people >>>> who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have talked >>>> about Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away imagined >>>> this reading of what you were writing. >>>> >>>> If the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long Emily >>>> Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what population >>>> geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be left is >>>> EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and which isn’t >>>> interesting and wasn’t to your point. >>>> >>>> So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? >>>> >>>> And are there really biologists operating that way? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 5:15 AM Santafe <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Can I ask one last question? after which I promise I really will shut up: >>>>> >>>>> The content of EricC’s note below (about the key in a lock), reflecting >>>>> back on things Nick said in the early posts about selection’s being a >>>>> tautology, which got me started digging a hole, have bothered me through >>>>> the night, and made me wonder if I can understand how I have been missing >>>>> both-of-y’all’s point. Was it something like the following:? >>>>> >>>>> — for me, “fitness” is a name given to (something like) the units (or >>>>> dimension) in which reproductive success is measured, or quantified. Not >>>>> sure “units” is quite the right term, but the point is that it’s about >>>>> defining a quantification program for observed outcomes, or the model >>>>> variables that we try to fit to them. I had taken the state of modern >>>>> work to show that this is the only actual meaning the term was ever given. >>>>> >>>>> — are you two claiming otherwise; that my supposition is not at all the >>>>> case? That there are biologists for whom there is some other meaning, >>>>> instead of or in addition to the one I gave above, about being a >>>>> measurement unit? Something like: “fitness” is a name for “the cause of >>>>> reproductive success”. As if to say: Well, there’s this thing with the >>>>> form of a name, so there must be something it names, that is a kind of >>>>> causal force responsible for generating what we witness as reproductive >>>>> success. And since there is one name, there must be some one kind of >>>>> causal force it names. >>>>> >>>>> — to me, an interpretation like that is so bizarre, it would never have >>>>> occurred to me to that there is anyone making it. It seems very similar >>>>> to taking an expression like “elan vital”, and saying that, since it has >>>>> the shape of a name, there must be something it names. To me, those are >>>>> strings of words that satisfy rules of syntax and that don’t have any >>>>> semantic referents at all. They may as well be Chomsky’s “colorless >>>>> green dreams” or something. I would not have imagined that there was >>>>> anything anyone expected, beyond the working out of the mechanics of lots >>>>> of cases of how-lifecycles-play-out-in-contexts, which can fill out some >>>>> vast taxonomy that has no singular “essence” underneath it. That could >>>>> well be my lack of empathy for how many other people think, like my lack >>>>> of empathy for their thoughts about God (along with my ignorance about >>>>> who is in the world). >>>>> >>>>> — I guess, since there are people who continue to talk about Strong >>>>> Emergence, and Philosophical Zombies, and who sound to me much like >>>>> people who talk about God today, and maybe like people who would have >>>>> talked about Elan Vital some generations ago, I should have right away >>>>> imagined this reading of what you were writing. >>>>> >>>>> If the above is what you were claiming, it would explain why my long >>>>> Emily Litella-like replies seemed like a tiresome recital of what >>>>> population geneticists already do (Nick’s point that “all that would be >>>>> left is EricS’s 2a and 2b”), which everybody already knows anyway, and >>>>> which isn’t interesting and wasn’t to your point. >>>>> >>>>> So, were you claiming that there are biologists operating that way? >>>>> >>>>> And are there really biologists operating that way? >>>>> >>>>> As always, I appreciate whatever patience or indulgence, >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 31, 2026, at 15:47, Eric Charles <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm a bit confused here... >>>>>> The initial dog pile on Nick seemed (to me) to have as one of its main >>>>>> points something like "Look, old man, once you formalize something >>>>>> mathematically we don't need to care what any of the words might mean or >>>>>> imply in any other context, it is just math, stop thinking that the >>>>>> words matter!" >>>>>> >>>>>> And now there have been several posts by EricS, at least one by Glen, >>>>>> and I think Marcus and Frank are in there somewhere as well, claiming >>>>>> that the words are crucially important and we need to take them much >>>>>> more seriously. >>>>>> >>>>>> So.... where does that leave us? Is everyone now onboard with the >>>>>> metaphors mattering quite a bit? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll also note that "function" can't do the work on its own to explain >>>>>> evolution. We still need to know why some functions are favored by >>>>>> selection and others are not. EricS seemed to indicate that we assess >>>>>> "fit" by determining if animals are "happy".... but the metaphor of >>>>>> "fit" is like a key in a lock. To explain evolution you need the >>>>>> matching of form-and-function-to-a-particular-environment. That >>>>>> matching *sometimes* increases reproductive success, and *sometimes* the >>>>>> traits in question are hereditary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Population genetics combined with field research can be very powerful >>>>>> along those lines, but the math of population genetics on its own, >>>>>> floating out in the ether, can't do it at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:10 AM Santafe <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Nick, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two smaller replies to what have become two sub-threads: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On Mar 30, 2026, at 15:42, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected] >>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > DES, EPC, FW >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > So far as I understand, the argument flowing from Fisher makes no >>>>>>> > claims about the kind of trait that produces reproductive success >>>>>>> > other than that it is the kind that produces reproductive success. >>>>>>> > FW, if that's not a tautology, it's a pretty tight circle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As usual, let’s decamp to more neutral ground in the hope of having an >>>>>>> ordinary negotiation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose that, in your overweening pursuit of the study of metaphor, you >>>>>>> never noticed that there is a once/4-year gathering called The >>>>>>> Olympics. Also never learned what any of its so-called “events” are, >>>>>>> what they are about, how they work, and how one differs from another. >>>>>>> My hypothetical here is meant to define a condition of having “very >>>>>>> little prior information” about some phenomenon that we can, >>>>>>> nonetheless, still reasonably unambiguously circumscribe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But a quick inspection shows that a subset of the participants (who all >>>>>>> together seem to be called “athletes”) are given metal disks and stand >>>>>>> on some kind of 3-tiered podium, while other athletes do not. Being a >>>>>>> statistician — a skill so helpful in the study of metaphor that it was >>>>>>> worth taking the time out to learn — you immediately recognize that >>>>>>> this is a kind of marking that can be used to partition the athletes. >>>>>>> Taking notice, for the first time, of some of the conversation in the >>>>>>> society around you, who seem not nearly so devoted to metaphor and thus >>>>>>> have time to do other things, you gather that these marked people seem >>>>>>> to be called “winners” (or better, “medalists”, this “winning” thing is >>>>>>> a finer sub-partition; I’ll mis-use “winner” to label the most salient >>>>>>> marking for this little parable). It’s handy to have such a term, for >>>>>>> use in later sentences, so they become less tedious than the ones I >>>>>>> have been typing so far. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You also note that while there is only one 3-tiered podium and >>>>>>> metal-disk set per one “event”, there seem to be many such distinct >>>>>>> “events”, so some kind of event name gives you a second kind of marking >>>>>>> you can put on the athletes. Moreover, interestingly, the “event” >>>>>>> label is again a proper partition (or at least seems to be; this one is >>>>>>> less cut-and-dried than the observation that everyone carrying a metal >>>>>>> disk is not someone not-carrying a metal disk, so we are wary; the >>>>>>> event label seems to be a bit more abstract): every athlete is in some >>>>>>> “event” set, and it appears that no athlete is in more than one of >>>>>>> them. As with the “winners” label, you learn that there are >>>>>>> conventionalized names for the events, and you can find a look-up table >>>>>>> if you need one or another of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, I can make a list of statements that seem to be of two different >>>>>>> kinds (scare quotes here indicate my statisticians’ attribute labels; >>>>>>> in my condition of very little prior knowledge, I don’t claim I have >>>>>>> any more semantics for them than I listed above): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Every “winner" is someone marked as having won something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2a. Every winner in the “gymnastics” event is shorter than the average >>>>>>> over all the participants; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2b. Every winner in the “high jump” event is taller than the average >>>>>>> over all the participants; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> … (we could presumably look for other such summary statistics that seem >>>>>>> to be unusually regular and to carry different values in different >>>>>>> “events”). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would say sentence 1 is “a tautology”, or close enough to it for the >>>>>>> purpose of this negotiation. Maybe I should use EricC’s good, and >>>>>>> slighly more flexible term, “truism”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now you may write a protest email: But the sentences 2a, 2b, have not >>>>>>> told me what constitutes “competition” in these “events”: “gymnastics” >>>>>>> and “high jump”, and given me the rule book for scoring them. Okay. >>>>>>> And they didn’t cook your dinner and do the dishes afterward either. >>>>>>> Life is hard. And more a propos (breaking my little 4th wall here), >>>>>>> the path to a fully-adequate “causal” theory through statistical >>>>>>> inference is like the Road to Heaven: narrow, tortuous, and inadequate >>>>>>> to many things one can rightly want to know. That’s what other >>>>>>> sciences are then for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But if you claim: The sentences 2a and 2b didn’t give me _any >>>>>>> information_ about these “events”, and couldn’t have, because they are >>>>>>> tautologies, I would say you made an error. Of course, the real Nick >>>>>>> would not say that, so we are all safe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above parable is, of course, about selection. I didn’t say >>>>>>> anything about heredity. But if I had happened to note that height is >>>>>>> a fairly heritable trait, I could have spun out a much longer story, >>>>>>> and defined some Bayesian-posterior conditional probabilities, which >>>>>>> would be shown to have properties such as: the posterior probability, >>>>>>> under various ceteris paribus conditions, for a child of a high-jump >>>>>>> winner to turn out another high-jump winner is higher than for that >>>>>>> child to turn out a gymnastics winner, and so forth. The amalgamation >>>>>>> of both of those stories would go in the direction of Fisher’s >>>>>>> fundamental theorem. It would leave out all the stuff that Fisher left >>>>>>> out of emphasis in his mad pursuit of his covariance term as an analog >>>>>>> to the thermodynamic 2nd law (a non-valid analogy, as it turns out to >>>>>>> be easy to show), and that Price included didactically (and here, to >>>>>>> EricC’s answer): that I didn’t even mention that the tall people might >>>>>>> get drafted into wars and put into an infantry to fire rifles over tall >>>>>>> dijks, while the short people might be drafted into Special Forces and >>>>>>> sent on missions to attack through underground tunnels, and so the >>>>>>> number of survivors could depend on many factors about which war their >>>>>>> country had started, in what theater, and against what opposition, etc. >>>>>>> These are the world of everything-else that Fisher lumped together >>>>>>> into “deterioration of the environment”, as Steve Frank (and I think >>>>>>> also Price) lays out. They are probably not well-analogized to >>>>>>> “mutation”, but in genetics, mutation also goes into the same bin in >>>>>>> the Price equation — _outside_ the term of Fisher’s fundamental theorem >>>>>>> — as the “deterioration” effects. The accounting identity is flexible >>>>>>> enough that we don’t need analogies to use it; we can formulate a >>>>>>> version for whatever statistics our phenomenon-of-interest supplies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway; at issue: Seriously, do we have a problem in scientific work, >>>>>>> of people being unable to gain partial knowledge about phenomena >>>>>>> through sentences of the kinds 2a, 2b, because they can’t tell the >>>>>>> difference between those and sentence 1? In the world where I live, I >>>>>>> don’t see evidence for this mistake. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eric >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>>>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,GvQhgG8mgl44zu_Tqszk_wQFcC3LBswQyBsmnoa7umwcI4cM2jGPGmAYotJwNMri0nXMbYayX6uZw5iDa5Mn0zM5Lzi9_LPGwP2Q6dG2zkm1Zw,,&typo=1> >>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,23DEBEu6zm1j58j5JsswXw4R4hnyuhIceP4fdD1lMWDKru8V9CE3qD4-RYjtV5Jy9hfTf9uHOrhrlBi_RdYMT7jsteJtGiX2nEMNJisxFedZstuD_29M3FA,&typo=1> >>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Ec4s1UwqPKENLyqkHX4Ib_R7EzxFYgc2j7jZdKdzIhORPykt1347aKvaSNnoCQ4Arvb6m2_GLwAwKSl29d-U5DrlMczDc4AHiyyrX-KaGBCrMK9RdKapkw,,&typo=1> >>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,wWOjZ0Q8WKeZG4U9_UBc_a11JtFDvedQPCTS8FL1Usmbm4F-EJO5IWv_Ignpmf4vTC3CO23cIKVFR_FtMZC8DWD4hyxlN0c7hdOfez8KEw,,&typo=1> >>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,kwN2JIDPqIj9UxOfed-aORUfsTjJO1DufRCI0ppHAlXiormfdNykgyPSWLfGlw5BiruUeiaRfbSG8W1tubwpfhSXeau4oRt3nvXTRhaRUQDZn1ezcoU,&typo=1 >>>>>> to (un)subscribe >>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQqYu7I-SVHGT_AjFnLh-XWpOng69axviT6aY8I-XQhC5yk80tH2Ke3qOfyvs8l3RCZeAkeZoIR8TnddaWkwLAXTuoc5QvUR8RvkfEpSQA4,&typo=1 >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC >>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,Scpn5Z6qKVVYYNEU1u9CRDlFHpw1wgOZOdNM_lN_6PGv3Act07AQi7IpeyFshe33FmWkTI9CAG8DxLRlNRkf96ox2bRdyp5XC_cgCr8eGG_qVIaFKTZQtQ,,&typo=1 >>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NLxA-XaYLw7kDphTWfVR6urQXoJSKIwq0etxJd8ER-oc2b18abBXo9Qeee2OhAh_25GSqFBFw3JCMtIdxzYZ2dNpnjUjp4hMFRrpN814z2HxmIPhG0rfxUF-CQ,,&typo=1 >>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>> >>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,zA-G5QKVxSPBJmAMP_AJzjZBgLoWIDEwNhUXDpDE-ij5HxoUybuXHsL7hq3XSjcaie2WQdh2hKkTDoZpSv083KPYvq8qWzFQDpts4RVeb0UxKke--9Km&typo=1> >>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,YuoMqhAnODFK7gL8VQKwXiuMZPGgTcNdV3JgB-s9IGxudIzKjP_2nuVrv9XASA2GmtPpabPVY1SoV_P65J8zfqHN98PEQERGPn4JY3pb&typo=1> >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,RTuBnYPs7aSXh6PCRgC3eltQzFenug0NrzICyO63IHxkmDRWr5as1yZl_aRfSuQdRBjUi6qNKJ8UnKmwUBClw5Wo4YjechJlRTyTQYdOsg,,&typo=1> >>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,-sgioWyoJ9Vy0MyLRBgl8ZQKbLOXF9VqGGTEutRE5wJioXcx3l2BEzHSM8_-tGX-WDZdF5260g7Uh0Nx9QOxyVNE4HeeRJ0JlF_paQyH75-KjEXPeg-W9RQpyVuR&typo=1> >>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>>> Clark University >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,TtGHguBztcaI183g6Goerj-O4VoUmgxpx6RFwy76dnUtcD6dMcEs2GfRLne1FYCYIv9JZQ_Qlp0DYwPIxqwUF0P5yyaODACw5wXNyxIS_4NA3OoABA1XdQ,,&typo=1> >>>> https://substack.com/@monist >>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,mMVE-osMfLMKveVRGsDNOLbCQxE2gtCfa9lLV-tXT5ooNLpQD3mqsdWZrYkDx7mKJDcf7XYJbAAs76SMkAt7fhk6zh8pI_xm2uaiDg2olbukzFktpA,,&typo=1> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>> Clark University >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,2XwwB39XAWBxm8sZIiJJtQaGopoq86JnxTvN46gGqo6aH0noWqqKl_l7rB_k-DozfW1XYaJks5IPwIsYhgQEFcMMYaST1TtrgzyaPODraxU,&typo=1> >>> https://substack.com/@monist >>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,svFJjYNZT04uLonFV0yujfOyRi6wCR5qc-O348ai4iwT5_F08j6oi7TW8PPCmquF6PKjGNjXrIdHlZlDzzHj1-5A3toxXWZa5j7dj8mSyCtOtir_evUN4QOA5A,,&typo=1>.- >>> .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... >>> --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,1Yj3oXBfXU9FL5YgY7_61lUY6S944YYnB3lhy68u4K0zPI0_lLJl4_qjp8pcYomUasPvoVenzsSlxfJNtZS8lkb_ALVAI9XA-ws_REd_mBz6DeUH5u3xUKaLb4A,&typo=1 >>> to (un)subscribe >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,0_T3p9FRn72Wb576gUkbP3yykjXY0kTI-AElcl-eqAWYU5womwJJ5TSlBwcpkYmObXMkPxa-cqkpKy04LnwF9q_s1uc78x2KFJsgvxP6LOgk5twjJd_wXnHKPa0S&typo=1 >>> FRIAM-COMIC >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9_aFoYc8LEBvlTRa6JAb15n0L4Hhp9lNSuX13T_IT-91Oq1jkfJ6EgnCAuLWMPdqpP-KDjnAUT7o3BnwzAIHxkvOxLzAfkPL3aSIq7ro&typo=1 >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,lMJPwQ_tUH-IPBwp6f2KXYAEarkDc0KOAA6TwZdPbWwifDQprErklE2-hCs5OWhc1DmB88QWKxpEPkPKXWnNOWMIFzI2Nsv2-XLYgRhUcGlyR_J5clz3J8k1pQ,,&typo=1 >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,EHRAq7ghLpjsl4ZHF55qmSa36UhxkealN7ABfO5qkV1J2Mu-lYC4DrN5c9FnHwPRLggzrNN6rWaSOsNed8iBIyLpQVXv1Rorh78hIsygsvEtQ-gJ03xn58aZUZ2Y&typo=1> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CPvtQP2Uq9O6hx6OoaGqvcOng_hflp90R4THZAMnk-bf2VdAlQHEaFMMukttoZR2uyYsZgR26YJosoJyZ-dw7iTGPHXyIAlnuaqMN8_mLVj8za6HIQln1mmHQapE&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,b3AvXhVEy1N77hAdXidLqY4OnlxMl_fkKC4MfVp9DHPWwtZDZjxApEeZrUcZw35Dve69osD9oJEpNlPcXDkCs7aZTCrlkMPel65x03DIYwaqmCcXTc5c&typo=1> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,eFxPkHDLGdpdeTO-gztrhV4LEU-uCg8Vl8HgGV-NYUbjcqSv9dEjbcOW599M-ZdEWWYP_ahE2rpzPG6T4mNxVaoyagEc53ho0qfIezO1GwnGWEy0i95YVw,,&typo=1> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > -- > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology > Clark University > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson&c=E,1,yOlkmrrUeTaGeYex3-BP2up_KTKEECrDeXyMl2bn9HMBnlqmOWOhGvMQOKYLoybbMqLzqnZSs7-_jUa1hkV7hkzl30kqZYwyMpt1XgLahOOdGMUu_KCS&typo=1> > https://substack.com/@monist > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsubstack.com%2f%40monist&c=E,1,sECLaBy8NN4JIxn0K_XdKJaqDL_5f-DBJjVXY18AdRfpb1OgG3a0kH415SIPlY-o8cIJxjTizTCnZ6jKbQKh39BkP19S9307-0f-Ic2zdY6d&typo=1>.- > .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,tC0PdYiCVSRc7b8jz4x7Yig5Hz71QYRfF3irlQEjCQChVMEQeyRN9YpFygqtdMjjNaAY26D2u5JvjHK-zYJYexEHINcvJUeaY1w-_Oh9zuU78r-Vy2mwuJHIdvnH&typo=1 > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,2jJpuVLI2AmmQBLt5lXMu7iYyu1XmT5ctf5oDB0lgfOJhgZFy9kEb5BrFx8O8jEnVxJiV8UKNrvg45SI5-G0cNgA8zmL9lA54oNbx1TwbTkm0RE,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,YtDpEX1fabSs1AlCN26XsY-EWjggWd8DwKaaGy4-VIPf0iFrJLBmyul8mQ5A7Q2Btig_DA8y8zKiI4bE9mWoTBg_21KyKki9nm5aCZijj-OY-rl5iliL&typo=1 > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NvWsaA57CgBqzhKbNfM7nTbeUEIi3Nz3UaZ__wXB6K9DGDMn3mhCOKtx-Y5A9I84BYiPEgB3aTVYkxRGfBJEFfhZoK6HEIhqbrDn_FY5&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
