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)
|