[Taxacom] Bayesian Inference in Phylogenetic Biology

[Richard Zander]

I'd like to point out that while it is true that Bayesian analysis deals
with belief, Bayesians also deal with decision ("make a bet or not") in
light of risk. Bayesians act and have to deal with the outcomes of their
actions, that is, they determine levels of credibility on which to base
further research. 

Philosophers may stop at choosing or belief; perhaps they too build on
past decisions but I wonder how much testing of reality is involved or
are the philosophies of science built like mathematics, assuming some
first principle and all else is apodictic?

I'm suggesting here that both armchair rationality and a brute research
program building on past well supported theories are needed for true
advance in understanding in the face of a rambunctious reality.

******************************
Richard H. Zander 
NOTE: NEW PHONE NUMBER 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
For FedEx and UPS use:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110
******************************
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of J. Kirk
Fitzhugh
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:55 PM
To: Hovenkamp, P. (Peter); taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Symposium: New Applications of Bayesian Inference
in Phylogenetic Biology

So, you are correct that Bayesian reasoning formally spells out how
(test) 
evidence (which could never be shared characters) is positively or 
negatively relevant to our belief in a hypothesis.  Changes in belief
are 
matters of induction, which is why Bayes theorem cannot be used to 
initially infer the hypothesis for which the theorem is used to measure
our 
change in belief in that hypothesis.