Striking a balance, weighting and Cladistics

[Thomas DiBenedetto]

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Zander [mailto:rzander at sciencebuff.org]

>My point is that there is no acceptable pattern in the data when the
>analytic result is a bush or a weakly supported tree. One can find
>"patterns" in totally random data.

I agree with your point. There is obviously no acceptable pattern in a bush,
for there is no pattern represented. And a weakly supported tree should be
labelled as such, and given as little credibility as it deserves.
My only point on this issue was that I percieve these concerns to be
recognized and addressed by most people in the field.

>Note the the sum of the probabilities of poorly supported alternatives may
>be quite large.

This seems in line with the points you make on your webpage (I've looked at
it but not had the chance to study it in detail). I have a question about
your use of the Baysean concept of "probabilities of hypotheses". I note
that you reference both Popper and Edwards on your webpage, and I seem to
recall that both of them have thoroughly trashed the notion that hypotheses
(as opposed to events) can have probabilites attached to them. I havent had
the chance to think through this issue to the extent necessary, but I must
admit that I find Poppers claim, that support or confidence in hypotheses
cannot be squared with the probability calculus, to be compelling. I have
always found the notion that one could measure the probability of a
hypothesis being true to be a very bizarre concept, especially in historical
analyses. Edwards made the point by saying (paraphrase) - that one simply
cannot view individual hypotheses as being drawn at random from some known
distribution of hypotheses - as a way of building his argument that it is
likelihood, not probability, that is the appropriate concept to use. Having
read these guys yourself, could you give me the outlines of the arguments
against their position?
-tom