Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1290215465

From: Wilcox Lisa <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Odds Are, It's Wrong - 5% of the time
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:11:05 -0800
References: <F9C440A2-FC59-4A9E-AAAC-85DEE9D2FAB0@GMAIL.COM>,<COL115-W50D879F102DC3996D9D454A03A0@phx.gbl><COL118-W33D30F8531A4233CE0ED4EA03A0@phx.gbl><003201cb8847$0488a270$c2482dae@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <003201cb8847$0488a270$c2482dae@Ken1>

On Nov 19, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Ken Nordtvedt wrote:

> Sure, if you KNOW the device is behaving the way you assumed. The
> interresting question is when does a string of unexpected results convince
> someone his model of the underlying process is wrong versus accepting it as
> a rare, outlier outcome of the initially assumed model.
> The real fallacy of that article is viewing even ideal science as a logical
> (as in mathematical logic) process. Science is inductive, and there are no
> rules of induction.

Ken, that sounds like a somewhat more thoughtful read. ;-)

It would be a bit of a "straw man" argument to assert that, because someone offers a methodological critique, he is suggesting that the method itself is worthless, wouldn't it?

The point of Siegfried's piece is that many of those basing research conclusions on said methodology do not understand its limitations, and are not expert in its best practices. Goodness knows, specific examples have been thoroughly, er, dissected on this list. This author's view is broader, suggesting that the scientific community in general fails to recognize and address this aspect of scientific illiteracy.


This thread: