[Taxacom] Reproducibility of phylogenetic analysis

Sergio Vargas sevragorgia at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 13:50:53 CST 2010


> I'm tried to struggle with his formal logic re evidence and hypothesis,
> and found (I think) that somewhere in the middle of some pages of
> "proof" that he switches e and H without telling. Blink and suddenly
> evidence and hypothesis are no longer what they seem. No I don't really
> understand it, but I am really doubtful. Anybody else get a similar
> feeling about this?

are talking here about the same proof? I referred to the one in the
1982 intro of the first postscriptum... the one of no
"ampliative" support. I've always thought this proof had immediate
application in cladistics as it shows that no matter how much (new)
data you add to your analysis the probability ratio between any two
trees remains the same. Provided both trees can explain the evidence,
which holds in this case.



More information about the Taxacom mailing list