[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Dennett on the Darwinism of Memes

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Tara Athan <taraathan@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 09:04:17 -0400
Message-id: <518112D1.1080707@xxxxxxxxxx>
On 5/1/13 8:43 AM, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
> Occam does not constitute scientific disproof
Proofs (and "disproofs") are possible in mathematics, but not in 
science. At best, there is more or less evidence to support a hypothesis 
relative to its alternatives. Traditional statistics are sometimes used 
to support rejecting a null hypothesis, but this does not constitute a 
proof.    (01)

Others have argued that such statistical conclusions don't belong in 
science, and Bayesian estimates of the credibility of hypotheses are 
more appropriate. Certain Bayesian methods incorporate Occam's razor 
mathematically by, in effect, applying a penalty to models with a 
greater number of parameters. (I provide a Wikipedia reference as a link 
to further resources, not as a reference 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_information_criterion).    (02)

Tara    (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>