[Taxacom] Reproducibility of phylogenetic analysis

Sergio Vargas sevragorgia at gmail.com
Tue Jan 26 12:28:15 CST 2010

If I'm not wrong, Popper insisted that our brains are theory-based. So
we propose theories pretty much by nature... I guess. Testing them
allow us to reject the wrong ones. This is pretty much the same as to
say that we all have a non-flat prior distribution for the possible
explanations of a phenomenon. I think, however, Popper demonstrated
that the ratio between the prior and the posterior probability of an
hypothesis doesn't change after testing the hypothesis... not sure
though, is in the first postscriptum to the logik.

anyways... he did said that all we have is Conjectures and their
Refutations... if a conjecture is not intuition, what is it?


> It's worth noting that Karl Popper, while insisting that science advances by the testing of hypotheses, steered clear of just how we should arrive at those hypotheses. Indeed, I seem to recall that he admitted intuition there. The most respectable these days seems to be the process of "inference to the best explanation" - which, surely, requires just the intuition of a highly trained, talented expert.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list