[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Nomina Dubia Part II: Rapator
I admit the system is subjective. This is a gray area: nomina dubia
are in the eye of the beholder. But I think this is OK. On that
point, David M. made this statement:
> As soon as you can't answer the question "if I were wrong, how would
> I know?" any longer, you're not doing science.
I think this is too harsh when applied to paleontology and biology,
because frequently we deal in probabilities, rather than absolute
certainties. That's why statistics are so important. For example,
one phylogeny does not *disprove* another phylogeny; one phylogeny is
only deemed more probable based on a set of pre-determined
assumptions (such as parsimony).
This is the same in all of science. For instance, the big advance of
quantum physics over classical physics is the use of statistics and
I think you're selling parsimony short. Falsification and parsimony are
the two parts of the scientific method, as far as I can see.
So, let's simply assume I included "unparsimonious" in "wrong"... :-)