Failed Refutations: Further Comments on Parsimony and Likelihood Methods and Their Relationship to Popper's Degree of Corroboration
Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Systematic biology Ročník 52; číslo 3; s. 352 - 367 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
England
Taylor and Francis
01.06.2003
Oxford University Press |
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 1063-5157, 1076-836X |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's philosophy. Contrary to Kluge's conjectures, likelihood methods are not inherently verificationist; they do not treat every instance of a hypothesis as confirmation of that hypothesis. The historical nature of phylogeny does not preclude phylogenetic hypotheses from being evaluated using the probability of evidence. The low absolute probabilities of hypotheses are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of Popper's concept termed degree of corroboration, which is defined entirely in terms of relative probabilities. Popper did not advocate minimizing background knowledge; in any case, the background knowledge of both parsimony and likelihood methods consists of the general assumption of descent with modification and additional assumptions that are deterministic, concerning which tree is considered most highly corroborated. Although parsimony methods do not assume (in the sense of entailing) that homoplasy is rare, they do assume (in the sense of requiring to obtain a correct phylogenetic inference) certain things about patterns of homoplasy. Both parsimony and likelihood methods assume (in the sense of implying by the manner in which they operate) various things about evolutionary processes, although violation of those assumptions does not always cause the methods to yield incorrect phylogenetic inferences. Test severity is increased by sampling additional relevant characters rather than by character reanalysis, although either interpretation is compatible with the use of phylogenetic likelihood methods. Neither parsimony nor likelihood methods assess test severity (critical evidence) when used to identify a most highly corroborated tree(s) based on a single method or model and a single body of data; however, both classes of methods can be used to perform severe tests. The assumption of descent with modification is insufficient background knowledge to justify cladistic parsimony as a method for assessing degree of corroboration. Invoking equivalency between parsimony methods and likelihood models that assume no common mechanism emphasizes the necessity of additional assumptions, at least some of which are probabilistic in nature. Incongruent characters do not qualify as falsifiers of phylogenetic hypotheses except under extremely unrealistic evolutionary models; therefore, justifications of parsimony methods as falsificationist based on the idea that they minimize the ad hoc dismissal of falsifiers are questionable. Probabilistic concepts such as degree of corroboration and likelihood provide a more appropriate framework for understanding how phylogenetics conforms with Popper's philosophy of science. Likelihood ratio tests do not assume what is at issue but instead are methods for testing hypotheses according to an accepted standard of statistical significance and for incorporating considerations about test severity. These tests are fundamentally similar to Popper's degree of corroboration in being based on the relationship between the probability of the evidence e in the presence versus absence of the hypothesis h, i.e., between p(e|hb) and p(e|b), where b is the background knowledge. Both parsimony and likelihood methods are inductive in that their inferences (particular trees) contain more information than (and therefore do not follow necessarily from) the observations upon which they are based; however, both are deductive in that their conclusions (tree lengths and likelihoods) follow necessarily from their premises (particular trees, observed character state distributions, and evolutionary models). For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's philosophy. Contrary to Kluge's conjectures, likelihood methods are not inherently verificationist; they do not treat every instance of a hypothesis as confirmation of that hypothesis. The historical nature of phylogeny does not preclude phylogenetic hypotheses from being evaluated using the probability of evidence. The low absolute probabilities of hypotheses are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of Popper's concept termed degree of corroboration, which is defined entirely in terms of relative probabilities. Popper did not advocate minimizing background knowledge; in any case, the background knowledge of both parsimony and likelihood methods consists of the general assumption of descent with modification and additional assumptions that are deterministic, concerning which tree is considered most highly corroborated. Although parsimony methods do not assume (in the sense of entailing) that homoplasy is rare, they do assume (in the sense of requiring to obtain a correct phylogenetic inference) certain things about patterns of homoplasy. Both parsimony and likelihood methods assume (in the sense of implying by the manner in which they operate) various things about evolutionary processes, although violation of those assumptions does not always cause the methods to yield incorrect phylogenetic inferences. Test severity is increased by sampling additional relevant characters rather than by character reanalysis, although either interpretation is compatible with the use of phylogenetic likelihood methods. Neither parsimony nor likelihood methods assess test severity (critical evidence) when used to identify a most highly corroborated tree(s) based on a single method or model and a single body of data; however, both classes of methods can be used to perform severe tests. The assumption of descent with modification is insufficient background knowledge to justify cladistic parsimony as a method for assessing degree of corroboration. Invoking equivalency between parsimony methods and likelihood models that assume no common mechanism emphasizes the necessity of additional assumptions, at least some of which are probabilistic in nature. Incongruent characters do not qualify as falsifiers of phylogenetic hypotheses except under extremely unrealistic evolutionary models; therefore, justifications of parsimony methods as falsificationist based on the idea that they minimize the ad hoc dismissal of falsifiers are questionable. Probabilistic concepts such as degree of corroboration and likelihood provide a more appropriate framework for understanding how phylogenetics conforms with Popper's philosophy of science. Likelihood ratio tests do not assume what is at issue but instead are methods for testing hypotheses according to an accepted standard of statistical significance and for incorporating considerations about test severity. These tests are fundamentally similar to Popper's degree of corroboration in being based on the relationship between the probability of the evidence e in the presence versus absence of the hypothesis h, i.e., between p(e|hb) and p(e|b), where b is the background knowledge. Both parsimony and likelihood methods are inductive in that their inferences (particular trees) contain more information than (and therefore do not follow necessarily from) the observations upon which they are based; however, both are deductive in that their conclusions (tree lengths and likelihoods) follow necessarily from their premises (particular trees, observed character state distributions, and evolutionary models). For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context. Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's philosophy. Contrary to Kluge's conjectures, likelihood methods are not inherently verificationist; they do not treat every instance of a hypothesis as confirmation of that hypothesis. The historical nature of phylogeny does not preclude phylogenetic hypotheses from being evaluated using the probability of evidence. The low absolute probabilities of hypotheses are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of Popper's concept termed degree of corroboration, which is defined entirely in terms of relative probabilities. Popper did not advocate minimizing background knowledge; in any case, the background knowledge of both parsimony and likelihood methods consists of the general assumption of descent with modification and additional assumptions that are deterministic, concerning which tree is considered most highly corroborated. Although parsimony methods do not assume (in the sense of entailing) that homoplasy is rare, they do assume (in the sense of requiring to obtain a correct phylogenetic inference) certain things about patterns of homoplasy. Both parsimony and likelihood methods assume (in the sense of implying by the manner in which they operate) various things about evolutionary processes, although violation of those assumptions does not always cause the methods to yield incorrect phylogenetic inferences. Test severity is increased by sampling additional relevant characters rather than by character reanalysis, although either interpretation is compatible with the use of phylogenetic likelihood methods. Neither parsimony nor likelihood methods assess test severity (critical evidence) when used to identify a most highly corroborated tree(s) based on a single method or model and a single body of data; however, both classes of methods can be used to perform severe tests. The assumption of descent with modification is insufficient background knowledge to justify cladistic parsimony as a method for assessing degree of corroboration. Invoking equivalency between parsimony methods and likelihood models that assume no common mechanism emphasizes the necessity of additional assumptions, at least some of which are probabilistic in nature. Incongruent characters do not qualify as falsifiers of phylogenetic hypotheses except under extremely unrealistic evolutionary models; therefore, justifications of parsimony methods as falsificationist based on the idea that they minimize the ad hoc dismissal of falsifiers are questionable. Probabilistic concepts such as degree of corroboration and likelihood provide a more appropriate framework for understanding how phylogenetics conforms with Popper's philosophy of science. Likelihood ratio tests do not assume what is at issue but instead are methods for testing hypotheses according to an accepted standard of statistical significance and for incorporating considerations about test severity. These tests are fundamentally similar to Popper's degree of corroboration in being based on the relationship between the probability of the evidence e in the presence versus absence of the hypothesis h, i.e., between p(e|hb) and p(e|b), where b is the background knowledge. Both parsimony and likelihood methods are inductive in that their inferences (particular trees) contain more information than (and therefore do not follow necessarily from) the observations upon which they are based; however, both are deductive in that their conclusions (tree lengths and likelihoods) follow necessarily from their premises (particular trees, observed character state distributions, and evolutionary models). For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context.Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's philosophy. Contrary to Kluge's conjectures, likelihood methods are not inherently verificationist; they do not treat every instance of a hypothesis as confirmation of that hypothesis. The historical nature of phylogeny does not preclude phylogenetic hypotheses from being evaluated using the probability of evidence. The low absolute probabilities of hypotheses are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of Popper's concept termed degree of corroboration, which is defined entirely in terms of relative probabilities. Popper did not advocate minimizing background knowledge; in any case, the background knowledge of both parsimony and likelihood methods consists of the general assumption of descent with modification and additional assumptions that are deterministic, concerning which tree is considered most highly corroborated. Although parsimony methods do not assume (in the sense of entailing) that homoplasy is rare, they do assume (in the sense of requiring to obtain a correct phylogenetic inference) certain things about patterns of homoplasy. Both parsimony and likelihood methods assume (in the sense of implying by the manner in which they operate) various things about evolutionary processes, although violation of those assumptions does not always cause the methods to yield incorrect phylogenetic inferences. Test severity is increased by sampling additional relevant characters rather than by character reanalysis, although either interpretation is compatible with the use of phylogenetic likelihood methods. Neither parsimony nor likelihood methods assess test severity (critical evidence) when used to identify a most highly corroborated tree(s) based on a single method or model and a single body of data; however, both classes of methods can be used to perform severe tests. The assumption of descent with modification is insufficient background knowledge to justify cladistic parsimony as a method for assessing degree of corroboration. Invoking equivalency between parsimony methods and likelihood models that assume no common mechanism emphasizes the necessity of additional assumptions, at least some of which are probabilistic in nature. Incongruent characters do not qualify as falsifiers of phylogenetic hypotheses except under extremely unrealistic evolutionary models; therefore, justifications of parsimony methods as falsificationist based on the idea that they minimize the ad hoc dismissal of falsifiers are questionable. Probabilistic concepts such as degree of corroboration and likelihood provide a more appropriate framework for understanding how phylogenetics conforms with Popper's philosophy of science. Likelihood ratio tests do not assume what is at issue but instead are methods for testing hypotheses according to an accepted standard of statistical significance and for incorporating considerations about test severity. These tests are fundamentally similar to Popper's degree of corroboration in being based on the relationship between the probability of the evidence e in the presence versus absence of the hypothesis h, i.e., between p(e|hb) and p(e|b), where b is the background knowledge. Both parsimony and likelihood methods are inductive in that their inferences (particular trees) contain more information than (and therefore do not follow necessarily from) the observations upon which they are based; however, both are deductive in that their conclusions (tree lengths and likelihoods) follow necessarily from their premises (particular trees, observed character state distributions, and evolutionary models). For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context. - Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the philosophy of science described by Karl Popper are based on false premises related to Kluge's misrepresentations of Popper's philosophy. Contrary to Kluge's conjectures, likelihood methods are not inherently verificationist; they do not treat every instance of a hypothesis as confirmation of that hypothesis. The historical nature of phylogeny does not preclude phylogenetic hypotheses from being evaluated using the probability of evidence. The low absolute probabilities of hypotheses are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of Popper's concept termed degree of corroboration, which is defined entirely in terms of relative probabilities. Popper did not advocate minimizing background knowledge; in any case, the background knowledge of both parsimony and likelihood methods consists of the general assumption of descent with modification and additional assumptions that are deterministic, concerning which tree is considered most highly corroborated. Although parsimony methods do not assume (in the sense of entailing) that homoplasy is rare, they do assume (in the sense of requiring to obtain a correct phylogenetic inference) certain things about patterns of homoplasy. Both parsimony and likelihood methods assume (in the sense of implying by the manner in which they operate) various things about evolutionary processes, although violation of those assumptions does not always cause the methods to yield incorrect phylogenetic inferences. Test severity is increased by sampling additional relevant characters rather than by character reanalysis, although either interpretation is compatible with the use of phylogenetic likelihood methods. Neither parsimony nor likelihood methods assess test severity (critical evidence) when used to identify a most highly corroborated tree(s) based on a single method or model and a single body of data; however, both classes of methods can be used to perform severe tests. The assumption of descent with modification is insufficient background knowledge to justify cladistic parsimony as a method for assessing degree of corroboration. Invoking equivalency between parsimony methods and likelihood models that assume no common mechanism emphasizes the necessity of additional assumptions, at least some of which are probabilistic in nature. Incongruent characters do not qualify as falsifiers of phylogenetic hypotheses except under extremely unrealistic evolutionary models; therefore, justifications of parsimony methods as falsificationist based on the idea that they minimize the ad hoc dismissal of falsifiers are questionable. Probabilistic concepts such as degree of corroboration and likelihood provide a more appropriate framework for understanding how phylogenetics conforms with Popper's philosophy of science. Likelihood ratio tests do not assume what is at issue but instead are methods for testing hypotheses according to an accepted standard of statistical significance and for incorporating considerations about test severity. These tests are fundamentally similar to Popper's degree of corroboration in being based on the relationship between the probability of the evidence e in the presence versus absence of the hypothesis h, i.e., between p(e|hb) and p(e|b), where b is the background knowledge. Both parsimony and likelihood methods are inductive in that their inferences (particular trees) contain more information than (and therefore do not follow necessarily from) the observations upon which they are based; however, both are deductive in that their conclusions (tree lengths and likelihoods) follow necessarily from their premises (particular trees, observed character state distributions, and evolutionary models). For these and other reasons, phylogenetic likelihood methods are highly compatible with Karl Popper's philosophy of science and offer several advantages over parsimony methods in this context. [Assumptions; corroboration; Karl Popper; likelihood; parsimony; philosophy; phylogenetics; probability] |
| Author | Poe, Steven de Queiroz, Kevin |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Kevin surname: de Queiroz fullname: de Queiroz, Kevin – sequence: 2 givenname: Steven surname: Poe fullname: Poe, Steven |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12775524$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp1kc1v1TAQxC1URD_gygkhqwc4pXhjJ064VQ8eVHqIChWJW5TEa-JHYgfbOfTMP47blEpU6mmt9W9Gq5ljcmCdRUJeAjsDVrF3wEpeQME4q3kunpAjYLLMKl7-OLh5lzxLv_KQHIewZwygLOAZOYRcyqLIxRH5s23NiIp-Q73ENhpnw3u6XXwc0NONmya0MVBn6WXrg5mcvaatVXRnfuFoBucU_YJxcCrcrq8GND55javTYGYaHb1084z-baAf8KdHpE4nZ-9d5_wt95w81e0Y8MXdPCHftx-vNp-z3ddPF5vzXdbznIsMgQumodIANQPNBZZF3uZadlKg6GsAqUEz1VddzXKtUPUlr3Svirxjner4CXmz-s7e_V4wxGYyocdxbC26JTSSc8GTNIGnD8C9W7xNtzVQCylZJWSCXt9BSzehamZvptZfN_-yTYBYgd67EDzqpjdrxNGn0BtgzU2Fzf8VJtnZA9m982OCV6tgH6Lz9zRPVQNw_hdZVKWE |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1463_6409_2006_00277_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s10539_017_9577_z crossref_primary_10_1111_cla_12027 crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1096_0031_2003_tb00379_x |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Copyright 2003 Society of Systematic Biologists Copyright Society of Systematic Biologists Jun 2003 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright 2003 Society of Systematic Biologists – notice: Copyright Society of Systematic Biologists Jun 2003 |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7X7 7XB 88A 88E 88I 8AF 8AO 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8FK 8G5 ABUWG AEUYN AFKRA AZQEC BBNVY BENPR BHPHI BKSAR CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ GUQSH HCIFZ K9. LK8 M0S M1P M2O M2P M7P MBDVC PADUT PCBAR PHGZM PHGZT PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS Q9U S0X 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1080/10635150309324 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Biology Database (Alumni Edition) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Science Database (Alumni Edition) STEM Database ProQuest Pharma Collection ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Natural Science Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) Research Library (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest One Sustainability (subscription) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Natural Science Collection Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student Research Library Prep SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Biological Science Collection Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition) PML(ProQuest Medical Library) Research Library Science Database Biological Science Database Research Library (Corporate) Research Library China Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China ProQuest Central Basic SIRS Editorial MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Research Library Prep ProQuest Central Student ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials SIRS Editorial ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest AP Science ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing Research Library (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Natural Science Collection ProQuest Pharma Collection ProQuest Central China ProQuest Biology Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection Biological Science Collection ProQuest Research Library ProQuest Central (New) Research Library China ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest Science Journals (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Biological Science Collection ProQuest Central Basic ProQuest Science Journals ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) Biological Science Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE Research Library Prep |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Zoology Biology Ecology Philosophy |
| EISSN | 1076-836X |
| EndPage | 367 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 356595881 12775524 10_1080_10635150309324 3651113 |
| Genre | Comment Journal Article Feature |
| GroupedDBID | --- -~X .-4 .2P .I3 0R~ 123 18M 1TH 29Q 2FS 36B 4.4 48X 5VS 5WD 70D 7X7 88E 88I 8AF 8AO 8CJ 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ 8G5 AAHBH AAHKG AAIMJ AAISJ AAJKP AAJQQ AAKGQ AAMDB AAMVS AAOGV AAPQZ AAPXW AARHZ AAUAY AAUQX AAVAP AAVLN ABBHK ABDBF ABDFA ABEJV ABEUO ABGNP ABIXL ABJNI ABMNT ABNGD ABNKS ABPLY ABPPZ ABPQP ABPTD ABQLI ABSQW ABTLG ABUWG ABVGC ABWST ABXSQ ABXVV ABXZS ABZBJ ACCCW ACGEJ ACGFO ACGFS ACGOD ACHIC ACIPB ACNCT ACPRK ACSTJ ACUFI ACUHS ACUKT ACUTJ ADBBV ADEYI ADFTL ADGKP ADGZP ADHKW ADHZD ADIPN ADNBA ADOCK ADQBN ADRTK ADULT ADVEK ADXHL ADXPE ADYVW ADZTZ ADZXQ AEGPL AEGXH AEJOX AEKSI AELWJ AEMDU AENEX AENZO AEPUE AETBJ AEUPB AEUYN AEWNT AFAZZ AFFZL AFGWE AFIYH AFKRA AFKVX AFOFC AFYAG AGINJ AGKEF AGORE AGQPQ AGQXC AGSYK AGUYK AHMBA AHXOZ AHXPO AIAGR AIJHB AILXY AJBYB AJEEA AJNCP AJWEG AKHUL AKWXX ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQC ALXQX APIBT APWMN AQVQM ARIXL ASPBG ATGXG AVWKF AXUDD AYOIW AZFZN AZQEC BAYMD BBNVY BCRHZ BENPR BEYMZ BHONS BHPHI BKSAR BPHCQ BQDIO BSWAC BVXVI CAG CBGCD CCPQU CDBKE COF CS3 CUYZI CZ4 D1J DAKXR DEVKO DILTD DU5 DWQXO D~K EAD EAP EAS EBC EBD EBS EE~ EHN EJD EMB EMK EMOBN EPL EST ESX F5P F9B FEDTE FHSFR FLUFQ FOEOM FQBLK FYUFA GAUVT GJXCC GNUQQ GTFYD GUQSH H5~ HAR HCIFZ HF~ HGD HMCUK HQ2 HTVGU HVGLF HW0 HZ~ I-F IOX IPSME J21 JAAYA JBMMH JBS JEB JEFFH JENOY JHFFW JKQEH JLS JLXEF JPM JST JXSIZ KAQDR KBUDW KOP KSI KSN LK8 M-Z M1P M2O M2P M2Q M7P MVM N9A NEJ NGC NLBLG NOMLY NU- NVLIB O0~ O9- OAWHX OBOKY ODMLO OJQWA OJZSN OWPYF P2P PADUT PAFKI PB- PCBAR PEELM PHGZM PHGZT PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO Q1. Q5Y QBD RD5 ROX ROZ RUSNO RW1 RWL RXO RXW S0X SA0 SV3 TAE TLC TN5 TUS UKHRP WH7 WHG X7H XOL XSW YAYTL YKOAZ YXANX ZCG ~02 ~91 AAYXX ABUFD AFFHD CITATION PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB 3V. 53G 6.Y 88A AAWDT ABSAR ABSMQ ABTAH ACFRR ACPQN ACZBC ADRIX AEKPW AFSHK AFXEN AGKRT AGMDO ANFBD APJGH AQDSO ASAOO ATDFG ATTQO BES C45 CGR CUY CVF CXTWN DFGAJ DOOOF ECM EIF ELUNK EPT H13 JSODD M0L M49 MBTAY NPM OVD O~Y Q~Q TCN TEORI UBC VQA YXE ZY4 7XB 8FK K9. MBDVC PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS Q9U 7X8 PUEGO |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3234-e1340f18f11901f34e652a2f7b74e4c9117f1f0dc8b902fdedc638fcd52b0bdb3 |
| IEDL.DBID | M2P |
| ISSN | 1063-5157 |
| IngestDate | Wed Oct 01 12:19:04 EDT 2025 Sat Oct 25 03:51:19 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 01:33:06 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:41:10 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 03:10:57 EST 2025 Thu Jun 19 15:24:45 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 3 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3234-e1340f18f11901f34e652a2f7b74e4c9117f1f0dc8b902fdedc638fcd52b0bdb3 |
| Notes | SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 content type line 14 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Commentary-1 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150309324 |
| PMID | 12775524 |
| PQID | 194770847 |
| PQPubID | 37498 |
| PageCount | 16 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_73343902 proquest_journals_194770847 pubmed_primary_12775524 crossref_citationtrail_10_1080_10635150309324 crossref_primary_10_1080_10635150309324 jstor_primary_3651113 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2003-06-00 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2003-06-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2003 text: 2003-06-00 |
| PublicationDecade | 2000 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England – name: Oxford |
| PublicationTitle | Systematic biology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Syst Biol |
| PublicationYear | 2003 |
| Publisher | Taylor and Francis Oxford University Press |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Taylor and Francis – name: Oxford University Press |
| References | 12116578 - Syst Biol. 2001 Jun;50(3):322-30 |
| References_xml | – reference: 12116578 - Syst Biol. 2001 Jun;50(3):322-30 |
| RelatedPersons | Popper, Karl Raimund, Sir (1902-1994) |
| RelatedPersons_xml | – fullname: Popper, Karl Raimund, Sir (1902-1994) |
| SSID | ssj0011651 |
| Score | 1.8556664 |
| Snippet | Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with the... - Kluge's (2001, Syst. Biol. 50:322-330) continued arguments that phylogenetic methods based on the statistical principle of likelihood are incompatible with... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref jstor |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 352 |
| SubjectTerms | Cladistics Falsificationism Genetics Hypotheses Inference Knowledge Likelihood Functions Logical givens Parsimony Philosophy Phylogenetics Phylogeny Popper, Karl Raimund, Sir (1902-1994) Probability Probability Theory Ratio test Steels Taxa Verificationism |
| Title | Failed Refutations: Further Comments on Parsimony and Likelihood Methods and Their Relationship to Popper's Degree of Corroboration |
| URI | https://www.jstor.org/stable/3651113 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12775524 https://www.proquest.com/docview/194770847 https://www.proquest.com/docview/73343902 |
| Volume | 52 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Biological Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1076-836X dateEnd: 20071031 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0011651 issn: 1063-5157 databaseCode: M7P dateStart: 19980901 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/biologicalscijournals providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1076-836X dateEnd: 20071031 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0011651 issn: 1063-5157 databaseCode: PCBAR dateStart: 19980901 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/eaasdb providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1076-836X dateEnd: 20071031 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0011651 issn: 1063-5157 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 19980901 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1076-836X dateEnd: 20071031 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0011651 issn: 1063-5157 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 19980901 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Research Library customDbUrl: eissn: 1076-836X dateEnd: 20071031 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0011651 issn: 1063-5157 databaseCode: M2O dateStart: 19980901 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/pqrl providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1076-836X dateEnd: 20071031 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0011651 issn: 1063-5157 databaseCode: M2P dateStart: 19980901 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/sciencejournals providerName: ProQuest |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwEB7RFqReKI-2hMLiA1JPUeNH1gkXRNGuuLBECKQVlyjxQ6xYJSHZReqZP87YeaAeyoWLZU2sxNKMJ99kJvMBvHYoWVClQpUIDFC41WGSFiJE9RfUpJon855sQq5WyXqdZkNtTjeUVY4-0TtqXSv3jfwKg20pI_Slb5ufoSONcsnVgUHjAI4Q2FBX0fWRZVMSgc49-yIGPRyfHcuxZ2MSXTkZinwekIlb76S-LPFuwOlfPMuT_9zyI3g4IE7yrjeRx3DPVE_gQc9BeYOzhRpmx9lIa-DE32ovfgq_lwV6Dk1w2_s-b9-9Ict965AjwY34f-RIXZEGY2TUfHVDikqT7eaH2W5c02TSs1R3XuwTE6QdS_C-bxqyq0lTN41pLzuiDcb_htQW79y29Wigp_B1ufjy_kM4UDeEijMuQkO5iCxNLHWAw3Jh5jErmJWlFEYo9LDSUhtplZRpxKw2WqEjsErHrIxKXfIzOKzqyjwDInWRptpYjWBDpFwXUpWIUXVSlKW2Og0gHJWXq6GvuaPX2OZ0aH96W9kBXE7rm76jx50rT70tTMs4GhSlPICLUd_5cOK7fFJ2AK-mq3hUXf6lqEy973LJOcK_iAVw3hvU3-czKeOYief_vPMFHLOe_DGM6As43LV78xLuq1-7TdfO4ECupR-TGRxdL1bZ55k7D5_8mLlRZn8ASRkQQw |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1Lb9QwEB6VAqIXnoWGAvUB1FPU-JF1goQQgq5ataz2UKSKS3D8gBWrJE12QXvm9_AfGeexqIdy64GbNbEcxf5mPM6M5wN46b1kQbUOdSLwgMKdCZNUiRCXX1GbGp6MOrIJOZkk5-fpdAN-D3dhfFrlYBNbQ21K7f-RH-BhW8oIbenb6iL0pFE-uDowaHSoOLGrn3hia94cf8DlfcXY-PDs_VHYkwqEmjMuQku5iBxNHPVboePCjmKmmJO5FFZo1H3pqIuMTvI0Ys5YoxGiTpuY5VFuco7j3oCbwhcW85mCbLoOWtBRy_aIhyyO3xrLoUZkEh14GYrauCMTl_bALg3yage33ejG9_6zKboPd3uPmrzrVOABbNjiIdzuODZX2DrUfWtrOtA2ePHnshU_gl9jhZbREJymZZeX0Lwm42XtPWOCH97eASRlQSpVN4jsYkVUYch89t3OZ74oNOlYuJtW3AZeSD2kGH6bVWRRkqqsKlvvN8TYr7W1pHQ4cl2XgwJuw6drmaLHsFmUhd0BIo1KU2OdQWdKpNwoqXP0wU2i8tw4kwYQDmDJdF-33dOHzDPal3e9DK4A9tf9q65iyZU9t1vsrbtxBDClPIDdAV9Zb9GabA2uAPbWT9EU-fiSKmy5bDLJObq3EQvgSQfgv-9nUsYxE0__OfIe3Dk6-3ianR5PTnZhi3VEl2FEn8Hmol7a53BL_1jMmvpFq3cEvlw3iv8AiYBoRw |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1Lb9QwEB6VLaBeeBYIBeoDqKdo40fWCRJCQDeiKlqtEEgVl5D4AStWSUh2QXvmV_HvGOexqIdy64GbNbEcZfx5PM6M5wN46rxkQZXyVSTwgMKt9qM4Ez5Of0ZNrHk06cgm5GwWnZ3F8x34PdyFcWmVg01sDbUulftHPsbDtpQB2tKx7bMi5sfJy-q77wikXKB1YNPoEHJqNj_x9Na8ODnGqX7GWDL98Oat3xMM-IozLnxDuQgsjSx126LlwkxCljErcymMUGgHpKU20CrK44BZbbRCuFqlQ5YHuc45jnsFdiX6GGIEu6-ns_n7bQiDTlruRzxycfzyUA4VI6Ng7GQoaqOQTJzbEbukyIvd3XbbS27-xwq7BTd6X5u86hbHbdgxxR241rFvbrA1VX1rbz4QOjjxp7IV34VfSYY2UxNU2brLWGiek2RdO5-ZoBLa24GkLEiV1Q1ivtiQrNBkufhmlgtXLpp0_NxNK25DMqQekg-_LiqyKklVVpWpjxqizZfaGFJaHLmuy2Fp7sPHS1HRPRgVZWEeAJE6i2NtrEY3S8RcZ1Ll6J3rKMtzbXXsgT8AJ1V9RXdHLLJMaV_49TzQPDja9q-6WiYX9txvcbjtxhHMlHIPDgaspb2ta9It0Dw43D5FI-UiT1lhynWTSs7R8Q2YB_c7MP99P5MyDJl4-M-RD-E6gjd9dzI7PYA91jFg-gF9BKNVvTaP4ar6sVo09ZN-ERL4fNkw_gMFs3Jh |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Failed+Refutations%3A+Further+Comments+on+Parsimony+and+Likelihood+Methods+and+Their+Relationship+to+Popper%27s+Degree+of+Corroboration&rft.jtitle=Systematic+biology&rft.au=de+Queiroz%2C+Kevin&rft.au=Poe%2C+Steven&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.issn=1063-5157&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=352&rft.epage=367&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F10635150309324&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1080_10635150309324 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1063-5157&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1063-5157&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1063-5157&client=summon |