In case anyone thought that I had given into existential despair or had a major infarct or something, the answer is yes, I did, on both counts. Or, in other words, I moved house. It took five days, and I still don't have broadband back. And now I have something like a month's backlog, after the trip to the States and the move, so posting will continue to be light. Sorry.
In the meantime, I want to ask you all - what is evidence in biology? I am going to a conference in January, and I'm keen to see what you think counts for or against a biological hypothesis, particularly historical ones. It would help to have opinions to spout there...
- Log in to post comments
> I am going to a conference in January
Oh, good!
Jason
John Wilkins wrote:
Please accept my deepest sympathy.
I was going to drop you a note, Jason...
Thanks Ian. Now I have several months free to unpack and throw out all the family crap that I accumulated over 20 years.
What is evidence in biology? p<0.05.
Bob
Now I have several months free to unpack and throw out all the family crap that I accumulated over 20 years.
"Several months" - with Christmas just around the corner and a conference in January?
Good luck; presumably you're still in Brisvegas?
Try again...
What is evidence in biology? p is less than 0.05.
Bob
Hi John,
I'm going to ask for a little clarification here--evidence of what? Are we talking any hypothesis in biology, or hypotheses in a specific area. Evidence for, say, speciation will potentially be very different from evidence for, say, the adaptive significance of a particular behaviour.
Or maybe I'm missing the point--if so, please tell me.
I left it open for a reason - I just want to see what people immediately (or thoughtfully) say. Free associate - your favourite notion of evidence,,,
Why the specific evidence in biology? Do you think there is something conceptually different about biological evidence than for chemistry or physics or history or literature?
Do you think there is something conceptually different about biological evidence than for chemistry or physics or history or literature?
That remains to be seen. Personally I think biologists tend to handle evidence a little differently, with conventions that differ from, say, medicine or physics. Whether that matters is something I am unsure about. I know, fo rexample, that although the rest of the scientific world has given up using "null hypotheses", more or less, psychology still does that in a solid manner, which means that evidence can be chosen relative to the NH. And so on.