[Taxacom] APG taxa

Jim Croft jim.croft at gmail.com
Sun Sep 4 16:35:54 CDT 2011


We are told that to use double negatives is poor form, but something has
often puzzled me.  Is there a technical, logical or semantic difference
difference between 'found to support' and 'not inconsistent with' or 'does
not contradict?

A lot of discussion on taxacom (and elsewhere) seems to focus on selective
presentation of supportive evidence, whereas the killer facts of science are
those which falsify and require a better explanation.

That something seems to 'fit' might not be support. Might it be just be not
untrue?

That's what I like about science. It is probably the only field where
rejection is considered a positive act. :)

jim
 On Sep 5, 2011 12:37 AM, "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org> wrote:
> When I see a repeat of "morphological data is found to support molecular
patterns," I take the opportunity to repeat my suggestion that ANY time a
group is broken into a different set of subgroups, one can find
morphological data to support those subgroups (oh, with a few "trait
reversals" and such). This is called the Multiple Test problem in
statistics, where by chance alone supportive information is discovered.
>
> The key question is "does the morphological information that supports the
molecular pattern truly overwhelm other morphological information supporting
other patterns"? That is, is the more than optimal morphological pattern (by
bootstrap, discursive reasoning, etc.) the same as the more than optimal
molecular pattern (95% credibility, etc.)?
>
> I doubt if is usually is.
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:
taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 9:49 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] APG taxa
>
> Hi Philip,
>         Actually embracting the molecular results for
> the most part is probably a very good idea for angiosperms. Especially
> since there are also newly discovered morphological data to back up much
>
> of it.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:
mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here



More information about the Taxacom mailing list