[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

Nothing that you just said has any relation to formal logic. The 
formation of a hypothesis is by way of non-deductive inference, thus is 
irrelevant to 'test validity' since testing involves a different set of 
inferential actions. No causal claims are required or desired in 
hypotheses? Wow, no more need for me to discuss this subject with you.

Thanks for the illuminating, if not terrifying interpretation of how to 
(not) do science.

Kirk

mivie at montana.edu wrote:
> You don't understand formal logic.  A hypothesis stands alone, and  is
> valid if it can be refuted.  Period.  The specific formation of the formal
> hypothesis is what determines the test validity.  As stated in the one
> presented, there are no causal issues involved (a nod to the pattern
> cladists), so there are no "causal claims in the hypothesis" nor is  one
> required (nor even desirable) in a valid hypothesis. The hyp stated does
> not require consequences to be valid, but may be used to construct further
> hypotheses (or not). Deductive consequences are themselves just-so-stories
> until tested as hypotheses. The hypothesis is based on discovery of new
> characters, so is not dependent on previously used characters -- your
> "vague causal conditions pertaining to the characters from which the
> hypothesis was inferred" do not appear in the hypothesis at all.  The
> narrower the hypothesis is the better it is formed.
>
> Mike
>
>
>   
>> These aren't deductive consequences, thus not test evidence. New
>>     
> characters can't be deduced from a phylogenetic hypothesis, since the
> hypothesis only states vague causal conditions pertaining to the
> characters from which the hypothesis was inferred. What is in need of
> being tested are those causal claims in the hypothesis, thus we have to
> find evidence that those occurred. This has been a long-standing
> misunderstanding in cladistics for far too long, and has been maintained
> in recent years by some authors publishing papers (especially in
> /Cladistics/), where the basic rules of deduction are blatantly
> violated.
>   
>> Kirk
>>
>> mivie at montana.edu wrote:
>>     
>>> Hypothesis: Examination of new characters will reveal potential
>>>       
> synapomorphies supporting the clade Turtles+Diapsids
>   
>>> Null Hypothesis: No such characters will be discovered.
>>>       
>>>> There is no 'test' of competing hypotheses here. Adding more effects
>>>>         
> to
>   
>>>> be explained by way of phylogeny simply means new hypotheses are
>>>>         
> inferred, replacing the old. No test has occurred, as no valid test
> implications stemming from the causal conditions stipulated by the
> hypothesis have been predicted.
>   
>>>> Kirk
>>>> --
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
>>>> Curator of Polychaetes
>>>> Invertebrate Zoology Section
>>>> Research & Collections Branch
>>>> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
>>>> 900 Exposition Blvd
>>>> Los Angeles CA 90007
>>>> Phone: 213-763-3233
>>>> FAX: 213-746-2999
>>>> e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
>>>> http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
>>>>         
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   
>>>> mivie at montana.edu wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> This turtle study is an excellent example of how the
>>>>> molecular-morphological issue SHOULD work.  There is an established
>>>>>           
> morphology-based system, challenged by new data from molecules,
> setting
>   
>>>>> up
>>>>> a test of competing hypotheses.  The test then causes new character
>>>>>           
> systems to be found and evaluated, leading to progress in the
> whole-evidence understanding of the group.
>   
>>>>> Why this is so seldom done in the great apes is a mystery.  The
>>>>>           
> recent
>   
>>>>> Discovery special on Ardi was a perfect example of nonsense
>>>>> pseudoscience
>>>>> being presented to the  public about great ape origins.  In the program,
>>>>> they kept saying they expected a human ancestor that was chimp-like,
>>>>>           
> showing a phylogram with chimps and humans having a most recent
> common
>   
>>>>> ancestor. Then, when they found something non-chimp like, they just drew
>>>>> the same phylogram LONGER!  They never dealt with the idea of refutable
>>>>> hypotheses, nor that fact that the common ancestor of humans and chimps
>>>>> (at whatever level it existed) would not be expected to look like
>>>>>           
> either.
>   
>>>>> No wonder so much of the public has a misunderstanding of evolution
>>>>>           
> if
>   
>>>>> we
>>>>> teach them about it with such sensational and misleading stuff! Makes
>>>>>           
> me understand more why this drivel drives John G over the edge. Mike
> Ivie
>   
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>>
>>