Induction. Realm of. Psychology. Philosophy of ..... Philosophers of Science would ask: âWhy do you ..... as juxtapositionâ [a list] than in â(â¦) the world as.
Not Plausible!
Even less Plausible!!!
Not Plausible!
Even less Plausible!!!
Not Plausible!
Even less Plausible!!!
Even less Plausible!!! WANTED Judgment & Decision Theory Making Rational Decisions
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, and the Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
Outline
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, 2 Questions be addressed and the will Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ 1) What is Hypothesis Testing and
why is it important? • general background • function in science • distinguish 2 basic types of Hypothesis Testing
Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
Outline
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, 2 Questions be addressed and the will Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ 1) What is Hypothesis Testing and
why is it important? • general background
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
• function in science
• distinguish 2 basic types of Hypothesis Testing
Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
Outline
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, 2 Questions be addressed and the will Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ 1) What is Hypothesis Testing and
why is it important? • general background
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
• function in science
• distinguish 2 basic types of Hypothesis Testing
Popperian Tests
Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
Outline
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, 2 Questions be addressed and the will Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ 1) What is Hypothesis Testing and
why is it important?
Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
2) What are Plausibility Tests? • what could that be?
• difference to other two basic types? • specific function?
Outline
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, 2 Questions be addressed and the will Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ 1) What is Hypothesis Testing and
why is it important?
Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
Cladogram Testing in 2) What are Plausibility Tests? Phylogenetics
• what could that be?
• difference to other two basic types? • specific function?
Introduction
Inventorying
We love to make Lists of all sorts.
Inventorying
We love to make Lists of all sorts.
Who, When, What, Where, How many ?
Inventorying
We love to make Lists of all sorts.
Who, When, What, Where, Lists come in various forms:
In written form…
How many ?
Inventorying
…as a painting…
Inventorying
Who, When, What, Where, How many ?
…as a painting…
Inventorying
…or as a Collection
of Things.
Inventorying
Inventorying
…or as a Collection
of Things.
Inventorying
Collections
Inventorying
Collections
Classifications
Inventorying
Initial Taxonomies
Followed rather pragmatic
and cognitive principles
An Essential Distinction
Science vs Metaphysics
Organizing Inventories
Science vs Metaphysics
Organizing Knowledge
Demarcating Science from Pseudo-Science & Metaphysics
Science vs Metaphysics
Metaphysical Taxonomy
Science vs Metaphysics
Scientific Explanatory Taxonomy
Science vs Metaphysics
Scientific Explanatory Taxonomy
What makes Science Science?
Epistemic Virtues
Epistemic Virtues
Ockham’s Razor (Parsimony) Minimize the amount of Entities necessary for explaining a given phenomenon
Especially: Keep the amount of unobservable Entities at an absolute Minimum
Epistemic Virtues
Objectivity e.g. international measurement units;
Epistemic Virtues
Objectivity e.g. international measurement units; controlled vocabularies for semantic transparency (ontologies);
Epistemic Virtues
Objectivity e.g. international measurement units; controlled vocabularies for semantic transparency (ontologies); imaging techniques;
Epistemic Virtues
Objectivity e.g. international measurement units; controlled vocabularies for semantic transparency (ontologies); imaging techniques; documentation for procedural transparency
Epistemic Virtues
Objectivity e.g. international measurement units; Reproducibility, controlled vocabularies for semantic transparency (ontologies); operational & semantic imaging techniques; Transparency, documentation for procedural Communicability transparency
Epistemic Virtues
Truth-to-Nature
Epistemic Virtues
Truth-to-Nature Correspondence empirically relevant & applicable
Epistemic Virtues
Truth-to-Nature Correspondence empirically relevant & applicable
Coherence formally and logically correct
Epistemic Virtues
Truth-to-Nature Correspondence empirically relevant/ Grounding & applicable Substantiation
Coherence formally and logically correct
Epistemic Virtues
Truth-to-Nature Correspondence empirically relevant/ Grounding & applicable Substantiation
Coherence formally and logically correct Justification
Epistemic Virtues
Truth-to-Nature Correspondence empirically relevant & applicable Substantiation Grounding Judgment &/ Decision
Theory
Coherence Makingand Rational formally logicallyDecisions correct Justification
Judgment & Decision Making in Science
The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method
a Question or Phenomenon that
requires Explanation
The Scientific Method
formulate or modify an Explanation
The Scientific Method
formulate or modify an Explanation
deduce
The Scientific Method
formulate or modify an Explanation
deduce
designed to test the Hypothesis
The Scientific Method
formulate or modify an Explanation
perform the Experiment
deduce
designed to test the Hypothesis
The Scientific Method
Hypothesis Testing
perform the Experiment
designed to test the Hypothesis
Hypothesis Testing an Instrument for Judging and Making Rational Decisions in Science
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing Testing against relevant Experience (Observations, Measurements), i.e. Data.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing Testing against relevant Experience (Observations, Measurements), i.e. Data. In case auf Causal Explanations, testing occurs against predicted Effects:
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing Testing against relevant Experience (Observations, Measurements), i.e. Data. In case auf Causal Explanations, testing occurs against predicted Effects: either direct Effects ’direct Evidence’ or
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing Testing against relevant Experience (Observations, Measurements), i.e. Data. In case auf Causal Explanations, testing direct Evidence occurs against predicted Effects: either direct Effects ’direct Evidence’ or
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing Testing against relevant Experience (Observations, Measurements), i.e. Data. In case auf Causal Explanations, testing direct Evidence occurs against predicted Effects: either direct Effects ’direct Evidence’ or indirect Effects ’indirect Evidence’.
Hypothesis Testing indirect Evidence
Hypothesis Testing Testing against relevant Experience (Observations, Measurements), i.e. Data. In case auf Causal Explanations, testing occurs against predicted Effects: either direct Effects ’direct Evidence’ or indirect Effects ’indirect Evidence’.
Hypothesis Testing
Evaluating a Hypothesis after Testing either: 1) Quantitatively
Hypothesis Testing
Evaluating a Hypothesis after Testing either: 1) Quantitatively (degree of support)
Hypothesis Testing
Evaluating a Hypothesis after Testing either: 1) Quantitatively (degree of support)
or 2) Qualitatively
Hypothesis Testing
Evaluating a Hypothesis after Testing either: 1) Quantitatively (degree of support)
or 2) Qualitatively
(yes/no; true/false)
Hypothesis Testing
Evaluating a Hypothesis after Testing either: (degree of support) 1) & Quantitatively Model Evidence-Weighting-Scheme
or 2) Qualitatively
(yes/no; true/false)
Hypothesis Testing
Evaluating a Hypothesis after Testing either: (degree of support) 1) & Quantitatively Model Evidence-Weighting-Scheme
or (yes/no; true/false) 2) Qualitatively Rationale for Verification/Falsification
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation • no verification (i.e. no “proof of truth”)
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation • no verification (i.e. no “proof of truth”)
• measure only varying degrees of support
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation • no verification (i.e. no “proof of truth”)
• measure only varying degrees of support • “the more data the better”
Hypothesis Testing
Essential Requirement for Goodness-ofFit Approaches To be able to evaluate the relevance and impact of supporting and contradicting data:
Hypothesis Testing
Essential Requirement for Goodness-ofFit Approaches To be able to evaluate the relevance and impact of supporting and contradicting data: A Rationale for quantifying / measuring Evidence or Degree of Goodness-of-Fit, i.e. a “Weighting Scheme”.
Hypothesis Testing
Problem with Models & Weighting Schemes Each Model provides its own Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Data, i.e. for Judging and Deciding on Hypotheses.
Hypothesis Testing
Problem with Models & Weighting Schemes Each Model provides its own Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Data, i.e. for Judging and Deciding on Hypotheses. In some cases, for a given scientific task/question, different Types of Data require different Models for their analysis.
Hypothesis Testing
Problem with Models & Weighting Schemes Each Model provides its own Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Data, i.e. for Judging and Deciding on Hypotheses. In some cases, for a given scientific task/question, different Types of Data require different Models for their analysis. different Models = different Frameworks
Hypothesis Testing
Problem with Models & Weighting Schemes Each Model provides its own Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Data, i.e. for Judging and Deciding on Hypotheses.
Different Frameworks are In some cases, for a given scientific often incommensurable task/question, different Types of Data require different Models for their analysis. different Models = different Frameworks
Hypothesis Testing
Problem with Models & Weighting Schemes Each Model provides its own Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Data, i.e. for Judging andof Deciding on Hypotheses. Results different Tests
Different Frameworks are befor incomparable In somecan cases, a given scientific often incommensurable task/question, different Types of Data
except for congruent/incongruent require different Models for their analysis. different Models = different Frameworks
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests empirical (statistical)Support Tests, measuring Measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests Aiming at
empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Hypothesis Confirmation Support and aiming at Confirmation
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests Empirically relevant & applicable Focused on empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Substantiation / Grounding Support and aiming at Confirmation
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests Empirically relevant & applicable Focused on empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Substantiation / Grounding Support and aiming at Confirmation
2) Popperian Tests Deduction based empirical Tests, aiming at the Falsification of the Hypothesis
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests Empirically relevant & applicable Focused on empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Substantiation / Grounding Support and aiming at Confirmation
2) Popperian Tests Deduction based empirical Tests, aiming Rejecting Hypotheses at the Falsification of the Hypothesis
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests Empirically relevant & applicable Focused on empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Substantiation / Grounding Support and aiming at Confirmation & Logically correct 2) PopperianFormally Tests Focused on Deduction based empirical Tests, aiming Justification at the Falsification of the Hypothesis
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Testing
1) Goodness-of-Fit Tests Alternative
empirical (statistical) Tests, measuring Support and aiming at Confirmation 3rd Approach
2) Popperian Tests
Deduction based empirical Tests, aiming toatHypothesis Testing? the Falsification of the Hypothesis
3) … “Plausibility” Tests
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Testing Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Underlying Task Reconstruction of a specific Sequence of certain Types of Causal Events that are specified in a Model by using putative Traces as direct Causal Indices (i.e. direct Evidence) and their Evaluation according to the Model.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach Task/Goal: Reconstruct the actual sequence of Speciation and Transformation events that have caused the data, resulting in a tree-like Representation.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach Task/Goal: Reconstruct the actual sequence of Speciation and Transformation events that have caused the data, resulting in a tree-like Representation.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach Task/Goal: Reconstruct the actual sequence of Speciation and Transformation events that have caused the data, resulting in a tree-like Representation.
Data: Distribution Patterns of Similarity of inheritable Properties across representatives of different taxa (OTUs), communicated in the form of Character Matrices.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach Task/Goal: Reconstruct the actual sequence of Speciation and Transformation events that have caused the data, INTRINSIC resulting in a tree-like Representation.
inheritable Data: Distribution Patterns of Similarity of inheritable Properties across Properties representatives of different taxa (OTUs), communicated in the form of Character Matrices. i.e. Direct Evidence
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. The Model should: • put the data in a meaningful causal relation to the tree-like representation;
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. The Model should: • put the data in a meaningful causal relation to the tree-like representation; •
all implicit assumptions should be consistent with relevant theories of presumed underlying causal processes.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. The Model should: • put the data in a meaningful causal Simple Model: relation to the tree-like representation; Parsimony should be • all implicit assumptions consistent with relevant theories of presumed underlying causal processes.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. The Model should: More complex Model: • put the data in a meaningful causal relation to the tree-like representation; Likelihood / Bayes • all implicit assumptions should be with substitution model consistent with relevant theories of presumed underlying causal processes.
A Consequence of the Model
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
formulate or modify an Explanation
Classical through generalization, extrapolation, assuming causal mechanisms for observable correlations, approximation,…
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
theoretical Framework in Phylogenetics In Cladistic Analyses, already the Model defines :
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
theoretical Framework in Phylogenetics In Cladistic Analyses, already the Model defines : 1) the general type of hypothesis: tree-shaped
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
theoretical Framework in Phylogenetics In Cladistic Analyses, already the Model defines : 1) the general type of hypothesis: tree-shaped 2) a limited Hypothesis Space: Tree-Space.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
theoretical Framework in Phylogenetics In Cladistic Analyses, already the Model defines : 1) the general type of hypothesis: tree-shaped 2) a limited Hypothesis Space: Tree-Space. Consequence: Set of possible Cladograms not inferred but depends on #OTUs and is given prior to analysis!
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. 2) Map & Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using the Weighting Scheme.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. 2) Map & Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using the Weighting Scheme. 3) Evaluate and Compare total Weight of Evidence of Data across all Trees.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. 2) Map & Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using the character-related: Weighting Scheme. Weighting Scheme for 3) Evaluate and Compare total Weight Phylogenetic of EvidenceCharacters of Data across all Trees.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. 2) Map & Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using e.g. the clade-related: character-related: Weighting Scheme. Weighting #Apomorphies, Scheme for 3) Evaluate and Compare total Weight Bootstraps Phylogenetic Values, of Evidence of Data across all Trees. Bremer Characters Support
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. 2) Map & Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using e.g. the clade-related: character-related: Weightingtree-related: Scheme. e.g. Weighting #Apomorphies, Scheme for 3) Evaluate and Compare total Weight #Steps, CI, Lh Value Bootstraps Phylogenetic Values, of Evidence of Data across all Trees. Bremer Characters Support
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme.
Goodness-of-Fit
2) Map & Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using the Weighting Scheme.
Cladogram Testing 3) Evaluate and Compare total Weight of Evidence of Data across all Trees.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Approach 1) Develop a Model of Evolution that is relevant, including a Rationale for a Weighting Scheme. 2) Map &INTRINSIC Optimize Data for each Tree from Tree-Space using the Weighting Scheme.
TEST 3) Evaluate and Compare total Weight of Evidence of Data across all Trees.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Measures of Goodness-of-Fit Measures can be interpreted based on the underlying Model.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Measures of Goodness-of-Fit Measures can be interpreted based on the underlying Model. Measures for alternative Trees can be compared and provide a scientific Justification for the Choice of a presently best Explanation of the Data.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Measures of Goodness-of-Fit Measures can be interpreted based on the underlying Model. Measures for alternative Trees can be compared andBUT provide a scientific Justification for the Choice of a presently best Explanation of the Data.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Measures of Goodness-of-Fit They Generalize from a Measures beof interpreted based limitedcan Set Instances to on the underlying Model.
all Instances Measures for alternative Trees can be compared and provide a scientific Justification for the Choice of a presently best Explanation of the Data.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Measures of Goodness-of-Fit They Generalize from a Measures beof interpreted based limitedcan Set Instances to on the underlying Model.
all Instances Measures for alternative Trees can be compared and provide a scientific Justification for the Choice of a presently They infer from these best Explanation of the Data.
Instances a general Causal Regularity
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Measures of Goodness-of-Fit They Generalize from a Measures beof interpreted based limitedcan Set Instances to on the underlying Model.
Criticized for being all Instances Measures for alternative Trees can be Inductivist
compared andBUT provide a scientific Justification for the Choice of a presently They infer from these best Explanation of the Data.
Instances a general Causal Regularity
Modes of Inference: Induction
Induction
Case
These beans are from this bag
Induction
Case
These beans are from this bag
Result These beans are white
Induction
Case
These beans are from this bag
Result These beans are white
.·. Rule
All the beans from this bag are white
Induction
Case
These beans are from this bag
Result These beans are white
.·. Rule
All the beans from this bag are white
Induction
Case
These beans are from this bag
Induction is synthetical: A finite Set of Observations is used for gaining new Result These beans are white Knowledge
.·. Rule
All the beans from this bag are white
Problem of Induction
Problem of Induction
Case
Result
.·. Rule
requires a Principle of Induction
Problem of Induction
Case
Result
.·. Rule
Substantiation / Grounding requires a Principle of Induction Justification
Problem of Induction
Case
Result
.·. Rule
Substantiation / Grounding requires a Principle of Induction Justification
Trilemma of Induction
Case
Principle of Induction • Circular Reasoning
Result
.·. Rule
Trilemma of Induction
Case
Principle of Induction • Circular Reasoning • Infinite Regression
Result
.·. Rule
Trilemma of Induction
Case
Principle of Induction • Circular Reasoning • Infinite Regression
Result • Dogmatism
.·. Rule
Trilemma of Induction
Case
Principle of Induction • Circular Reasoning • Infinite Regression
Result • Dogmatism
.·. Rule
Trilemma of Induction
Case
Problem of Induction Principle of Induction • Circular Reasoning • Infinite Regression
Result • Dogmatism
.·. Rule
David Hume (1711-1776)
Trilemma of Induction
Case
Problem of Induction Principle of Induction • Circular Reasoning
Result
• Infinitean Regression Is there • Dogmatism Alternative?
.·. Rule
David Hume (1711-1776)
Popper‘s Falsificationism
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994)
Popper’s Approach
Deduction
Induction
Popper’s Approach
Deduction Deduction is analytical: No new Knowledge gained; Existing Knowledge is only Induction rephrased
Popper’s Approach
Deduction
Induction
Popper’s Approach
Deduction
Induction
Realm of Psychology
Popper’s Approach
Deduction
Induction
Philosophy of Science
Realm of Psychology
Asymmetry of Falsification vs Verification
Initial Idea Distinguishing “All-Sentences”
from “Some-Exist-Sentences”
Deduction - modus tollens
Hypothesis
All the beans from this bag are white
Deduction - modus tollens
Hypothesis
All the beans from this bag are white.
Prediction
All beans taken from this bag will be white.
Deduction - modus tollens
Hypothesis
All the beans from this bag are white.
Prediction
All beans taken from this bag will be white.
contradicting Observation
Some beans exist that are from this bag
that are NOT white.
Demarcation Criterion
In case the Observation is true, modus tollens proves that the Hypothesis is false.
The Hypothesis is thus, in principle,
falsifiable.
Demarcation Criterion
Science Knowledge
Metaphysics Opinion, Believe, Pseudo-Science
Demarcation Criterion
Science Knowledge
Deduction - modus tollens
Hypothesis
All the beans from this bag are white.
Prediction
All beans taken from this bag will be white.
contradicting Observation
Some beans exist that are from this bag
that are NOT white.
Deduction - modus tollens
Hypothesis
All the beans from this bag are white.
Very well suited for the so called EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCES, Prediction All beans taken from this bag will be white. that infer PREDICTIONS from contradicting Some beans exist that are from this bag UNIVERSAL CAUSAL LAWS. Observation that are NOT white.
The Scientific Method
formulate or modify an Explanation
deduce
Experimental
Sciences
perform the Experiment
design to Test the Hypothesis
Deduction - modus tollens
In Experimental Sciences
Theoretical Entity Electron
Deduction - modus tollens
In Experimental Sciences Theory Predicted Necessary Theoretical Entity Causal Effect Electron
emitting Light when changing to Orbit closer to Nucleus
Deduction - modus tollens
In Experimental Sciences Theory Predicted Necessary Theoretical Entity Causal Effect emitting Light when changing to Orbit closer to Nucleus
Electron
Electron in the Lab
Practice
Actual Observable/ Measurable Effect
Deduction - modus tollens
In Experimental Sciences Theory Predicted Necessary Theoretical Entity Causal Effect emitting Light when changing to Orbit closer to Nucleus
Electron
Electron in the Lab
Practice
Actual Observable/ Measurable Effect
Hypothesis Corroborated Observed/ Measured Effect
Predicted Necessary Causal Effect
Deduction - modus tollens
In Experimental Sciences Theory Predicted Necessary Theoretical Entity Causal Effect emitting Light when changing to Orbit closer to Nucleus
Electron
Electron in the Lab
Practice
Actual Observable/ Measurable Effect
Hypothesis Falsified Observed/ Measured Effect
Predicted Necessary Causal Effect
Deduction - modus tollens
In Experimental Sciences Theory Predicted Necessary Theoretical Entity Observation Causal Effect A single can be Electron
emitting Light when changing to Orbit closer to Nucleus
already sufficient, i.e. Practice
Electron in the Actual Observable/ qualitative decisive, for Lab Measurable Effect
Falsification Hypothesis Falsified Corroborated Observed/ Measured Effect
Predicted Necessary Causal Effect
FALSIFICATIONISM & PHYLOGENETICS
FALSIFICATIONISM & PHYLOGENETICS
Justification of the best Method of Classification
Justification of the best Method FALSIFICATIONISM & of Reconstructing Phylogeny PHYLOGENETICS
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In order to be scientific sensu Popper, a Phylogenetic Hypothesis must be capable of failing against experience.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In order to be scientific sensu Popper, a Phylogenetic Hypothesis must be capable of
With NO INDUCTION involved !
failing against experience.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In order to be scientific sensu Popper, a Phylogenetic Hypothesis must be capable of failing against experience.
In other words, the Hypothesis must be
FALSIFIABLE in principle.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Are Cladograms falsifiable?
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Are Cladograms falsifiable?
How do we Test Cladograms in Phylogenetic Research Practice?
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Empirical Basis: Distribution Patterns of Similarity among inheritable Properties of Organisms.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Empirical Basis: Distribution Patterns of Similarity among inheritable Properties of Organisms. What is the deductive Link between a
given Pattern and a specific Cladogram? Can a Cladogram deductively contradict any given Pattern?
Falsification & Phylogenetics
NO DEDUCTIVE CONTRADICTION Pattern NOT prohibited by this Cladogram!
Falsification & Phylogenetics
AGAIN: NO DEDUCTIVE CONTRADICTION Again: Pattern NOT prohibited by this Cladogram!
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Falsification & Phylogenetics
No deductive link between cladograms and the empirical basis used for their reconstruction
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: The Background Knowledge Theory of Evolution provides more than one possible Explanation for an observed Pattern of Similarity of inheritable organismic Properties.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: The Background Knowledge Theory of Evolution provides more than one possible Apomorphy Explanation for an observed Pattern of
Homoplasy Similarity of inheritable organismic Properties.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In Diagnostic Sciences
Theoretical Entity Cladogram/Monophylum
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In Diagnostic Sciences Theory
Theoretical Entity Cladogram/Monophylum
Predicted Necessary Causal Effect
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In Diagnostic Sciences Theory
Theoretical Entity Cladogram/Monophylum
“Retrodicted” Necessary Causal Effect
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In Diagnostic Sciences Theory
Theoretical Entity Cladogram/Monophylum
“Retrodicted” Necessary Causal Effect
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In Diagnostic Sciences Theory
Theoretical Entity Cladogram/Monophylum
Congruence Test
“Retrodicted” Necessary Causal Effect
Falsification & Phylogenetics
In Diagnostic Sciences Theory
Theoretical Entity Cladogram/Monophylum
Congruence Test
“Retrodicted” Necessary Causal Effect
“Falsifies” Sets of Apomorphy Hypothesis
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
NO Character can serve as potential Falsifier for any given Cladogram/
Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
NO Character can serve as potential Falsifier for any given Cladogram/
Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
NO Character can serve as potential Falsifier for any given Cladogram/
Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
NO Character can serve as potential Falsifier for any given Cladogram/
Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
NO Character can serve as potential Falsifier for any given Cladogram/
Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts any given Cladogram/Monophylum.
NO Character can serve as potential Falsifier for any given Cladogram/
Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem:
Falsificationism NO intrinsic heritable Property contradicts not well suited for any givenDIAGNOSTIC Cladogram/Monophylum. SCIENCE, because they usually do not infer PREDICTIONS NO Character can serve as potential from Falsifier for any given Cladogram/ UNIVERSAL CAUSAL LAWS. Monophylum.
Falsification & Phylogenetics
Problem: EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE NO intrinsic heritable =Property contradicts
“HARD SCIENCE” any given Cladogram/Monophylum. NO Character can serve as potential
DIAGNOSTIC SCIENCE Falsifier for any=given Cladogram/ “SOFT SCIENCE” Monophylum.
Conclusion
Vogt (2008) The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences. Cladistics 24: 62-73.
Consequence* Science Knowledge
Metaphysics Opinion, Believe, Pseudo-Science
Consequence* Science Knowledge
* BUT: Falsificationism has been Criticized for several Reasons
Criticism
DUHEM-QUINE Thesis Every empirical Test requires some auxiliary assumptions, i.e. Background Knowledge.
Criticism
DUHEM-QUINE Thesis Every empirical Test requires some auxiliary assumptions, i.e. Background Knowledge.
All predictions rest on these assumptions.
Criticism
DUHEM-QUINE Thesis Every empirical Test requires some auxiliary assumptions, i.e. Background Knowledge.
All predictions rest on these assumptions. Thus, the consequences of a test also rest on these assumptions.
Criticism
Whereas the Set DUHEM-QUINE Thesis Every empirical Test requires some auxiliary {HYPOTHESIS,
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE, assumptions, i.e. Background Knowledge. OBSERVATIONS} All predictions rest on these assumptions.
can be falsified as a whole, no Thus, the consequences of a can test also single component of the set be in principle. restfalsified on these assumptions.
Criticism
Conclusion from DUHEM-QUINE Thesis Whereas a Hypothesis can be falsifiable in
principle, it cannot be actually falsified.
Criticism
Conclusion from DUHEM-QUINE Thesis Whereas a Hypothesis can be falsifiable in
principle, it cannot be actually falsified. Claiming true Falsification of a hypothesis commits the mistake of naïve strict
Falsificationism.
Back to Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
So far…
Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum
Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic heritable
Popperian
intrinsic heritable
Plausibility
intrinsic heritable
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
So far…
Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum
Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic heritable
Popperian
intrinsic heritable
Plausibility
intrinsic heritable
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
So far…
Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum
Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic heritable
Popperian
intrinsic heritable
Plausibility
intrinsic heritable
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
So far…
Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum
Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic heritable
Popperian
intrinsic heritable
Plausibility
intrinsic heritable
Tests using other Sources of Data
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on Biology
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on Biology intrinsic heritable Properties
intrinsic Tests
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on Biology intrinsic heritable Properties
intrinsic Tests
extrinsic Features
extrinsic Tests
not inheritable
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on Biology intrinsic heritable Properties
intrinsic Tests
extrinsic extrinsic Features require a different ModelTests not inheritable
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on Biology intrinsic heritable Properties
intrinsic Tests
PLAUSIBILITY extrinsic extrinsic Features require a different ModelTests not inheritable
TEST ?
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Plausibility Test Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum
Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic heritable
Popperian
intrinsic heritable
Plausibility
intrinsic heritable
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics
Plausibility Test Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum
Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic heritable
Popperian
intrinsic heritable
Plausibility
intrinsic heritable
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Plausibility Test Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
intrinsic
extrinsic
Popperian
intrinsic
extrinsic
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Extrinsic Features used for Testing Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Extrinsic Features used for Testing Cladograms • strata of fossil taxa / taxon age
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Extrinsic Features used for Testing Cladograms • strata of fossil taxa / taxon age • geographical distribution
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Extrinsic Features used for Testing Cladograms • strata of fossil taxa / taxon age • geographical distribution
• associates (i.e. parasites, symbionts)
Hypothesis Testing & Types of Data
Extrinsic Features used for Testing Cladograms • strata of fossil taxa / taxon age • geographical distribution
• associates (i.e. parasites, symbionts) • preferred habitat •…
Using STRATA DATA for Goodness-of-Fit Tests
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known Fossil Record
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known TheFossil Fossil Record Record confirms the Cladogram Hypothesis
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known Fossil Record BUT: Taxon Ages are not heritable, thus carry no Homology Information, thus cannot be Phylogenetic Characters Grandcolas et al. (2011) Mapping extrinsic traits such as extinction risks or modelled bioclimatic niches on phylogenies: does it make sense at all? Cladistics 27(2): 181-185.
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known Fossil Record
Problem:
BUT: Taxon Ages are not heritable, No Rationale for thus carry no Homology Information, Quantifying Weight of Evidence thus cannot be Phylogenetic Characters Grandcolas et al. (2011) Mapping extrinsic traits such as extinction risks or modelled bioclimatic niches on phylogenies: does it make sense at all? Cladistics 27(2): 181-185.
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known Fossil Record
Problem:
BUT: TaxonBut Ages are not heritable, maybe a Candidate No Rationale for thus carry noforHomology Information, a Plausibility Test of Quantifying Weight of Evidence thus cannot beCladogram Phylogenetic Characters Hypotheses? Grandcolas et al. (2011) Mapping extrinsic traits such as extinction risks or modelled bioclimatic niches on phylogenies: does it make sense at all? Cladistics 27(2): 181-185.
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Direct and indirect Data:
direct and indirect Tests ?
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model direct Participants in the Causal Process
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model direct Participants in the Causal Process intrinsic heritable Properties
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model direct Participants in the Causal Process intrinsic heritable Properties
direct Evidence
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model direct Participants in the Causal Process intrinsic heritable Properties
direct Evidence
indirectly affected by the Causal Process
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model direct Participants in the Causal Process intrinsic heritable Properties
direct Evidence
indirectly affected by the Causal Process extrinsic Features not inheritable
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model direct Participants in the Causal Process intrinsic heritable Properties
direct Evidence
indirectly affected by the Causal Process extrinsic Features not inheritable
indirect Evidence
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Classifying Types of Data for Testing Cladograms based on the Causal Model indirect Evidence intrinsic heritable
Properties
extrinsic Features direct Evidence not inheritable
direct Evidence
indirect Evidence
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
direct
indirect
Popperian
direct
indirect
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
direct
indirect
Popperian
direct
indirect
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms
Direct & indirect Tests of Cladograms Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
direct
indirect
Popperian
direct
indirect
Using STRATA DATA for Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Assuming that…
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known Fossil Record Assuming that…
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
NEW Fossil Record Assuming that…
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known NEW IF the New Fossil Fossil Record Record were true, Assuming that…
the Cladogram would be Falsified
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Known NEW IF the New Fossil Fossil Record Record were true,
“temporal order Assuming that… the Cladogram
would be Falsified carries information” Fisher (2008) Stratocladistics: Integrating temporal data in phylogenetic inference. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 39: 365-385.
© Peter Schmid
© Ray Troll
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2010/Neue-Hominidenart/ Phylogeny.jpg
http://www.earth-time.org/trollart.html
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
direct
indirect
Popperian
direct
indirect
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
direct
indirect
Popperian
direct
indirect
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Type of Hypothesis Type of Test
Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit
direct
indirect
Popperian
direct
indirect
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Contemporary
Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
Philosophers of Science Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit would ask: direct “Why Popperian
direct
do indirect you
care at all?”
indirect
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Contemporary
Type of Hypothesis
Type of Test
in Theory: Philosophers ofYES Science Cladogram/Monophylum Goodness-of-Fit would ask: direct “Why
indirect do in Practice: usuallyyou NO Popperian
direct
care at all?”
indirect
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Cladogram Falsifiability: Contemporary
YESType of Hypothesis
in Theory: Philosophers ofYES Science Cladogram/Monophylum Type of Test
Goodness-of-Fit direct indirect Cladogram Rejection: would ask: “Why do in Practice: usuallyyou NO Popperian
direct
care at all?” usually NO
indirect
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Theropod Origin of Birds Hypothesis Fossils from most bird-like (i.e. feathered) nonavian Theropods are younger in Age than Archaeopteryx 120 million vs 155 million
Feduccia (1994) The Great Dinosaur Debate. Living Bird 13: 29-33. Witmer (1995) The Search for the Origin of Birds. Franklin Watts, NY. Feduccia (1996) The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. Witmer (2002) The Debate on Avian Ancestry; Phylogeny, Function and Fossils. In: Mesozoic Birds. Pp.3-30.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Theropod Origin of Birds Hypothesis Fossils from most bird-like (i.e. feathered)
The Temporal Paradox
nonavian Theropods are younger in Age than “You can’t be Archaeopteryx
your own Grandmother”
120 million vs 155 million
Feduccia (1994) The Great Dinosaur Debate. Living Bird 13: 29-33. Witmer (1995) The Search for the Origin of Birds. Franklin Watts, NY. Feduccia (1996) The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. Witmer (2002) The Debate on Avian Ancestry; Phylogeny, Function and Fossils. In: Mesozoic Birds. Pp.3-30.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Theropod Origin of Birds Hypothesis Fossils from most bird-like (i.e. feathered)
The Temporal Paradox “explained” by
nonavian Theropods are younger in Age than
convergent “You can’t be Archaeopteryx Evolution & poor your own Grandmother” Fossil Record 120 million vs 155 million
Feduccia (1994) The Great Dinosaur Debate. Living Bird 13: 29-33. Witmer (1995) The Search for the Origin of Birds. Franklin Watts, NY. Feduccia (1996) The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. Witmer (2002) The Debate on Avian Ancestry; Phylogeny, Function and Fossils. In: Mesozoic Birds. Pp.3-30.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Theropod Origin of Birds Hypothesis DUHEM-QUINE PROBLEM Fossils from most bird-like (i.e. feathered)
The Temporal Paradox Whereas the Set “explained” by nonavian Theropods are younger in Age than {convergent HYPOTHESIS, “You can’t be Archaeopteryx BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE, Evolution & poor your own OBSERVATIONS} Grandmother”
Fossil Record
can be falsified a whole, no 120 million vs 155as million single component of the set can be falsified in principle. Feduccia (1994) The Great Dinosaur Debate. Living Bird 13: 29-33. Witmer (1995) The Search for the Origin of Birds. Franklin Watts, NY. Feduccia (1996) The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. Witmer (2002) The Debate on Avian Ancestry; Phylogeny, Function and Fossils. In: Mesozoic Birds. Pp.3-30.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Strata Data
Theropod Origin of Birds Hypothesis DUHEM-QUINE PROBLEM Fossils from most bird-like (i.e. feathered)
The Temporal Paradox Whereas the Set “explained” by Popperian Falsificationism nonavian Theropods are younger in Age than
{convergent HYPOTHESIS,
“You can’t be Archaeopteryx BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE, Evolution & poor your own in scientific practice usually OBSERVATIONS} Grandmother”
Fossil Record
can be falsified as a whole, no 120 million vs 155 million of NO RELEVANCE single component of the set can be falsified in principle. Feduccia (1994) The Great Dinosaur Debate. Living Bird 13: 29-33. Witmer (1995) The Search for the Origin of Birds. Franklin Watts, NY. Feduccia (1996) The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press. Witmer (2002) The Debate on Avian Ancestry; Phylogeny, Function and Fossils. In: Mesozoic Birds. Pp.3-30.
PLAUSIBILITY TESTS for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
So far it seems that so called Plausibility Tests in Phylogenetics
are indirect Tests that only function as some sort of Control:
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
So far it seems that so called Plausibility Tests in Phylogenetics
are indirect Tests that only function as some sort of Control: congruent with Cladogram
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
So far it seems that so called Plausibility Tests in Phylogenetics
are indirect Tests that only function as some sort of Control: congruent with Cladogram
Confirmation
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
So far it seems that so called Plausibility Tests in Phylogenetics
are indirect Tests that only function as some sort of Control: congruent with Cladogram incongruent with Cladogram
Confirmation
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
So far it seems that so called Plausibility Tests in Phylogenetics
are indirect Tests that only function as some sort of Control: congruent with Cladogram
Confirmation
incongruent with Cladogram
Go back …
Other Sources for Testing Cladograms: ANCESTRAL STATES
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States If the best Cladogram Hypothesis entails the Ancestral State: Wingless with blue wing Feather
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States If the best Cladogram Hypothesis entails the Ancestral State: Wingless with blue wing Feather The Hypothesis is necessarily wrong, since it is logically inconsistent.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States If the best Cladogram Hypothesis entails the Ancestral State: Wingless with blue wing Feather The Hypothesis is necessarily wrong, since it is logically inconsistent. The Hypothesis must be rejected.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States If the best Cladogram Hypothesis entails the Ancestral State:
This is no Wingless with blue wing Feather
The Hypothesis is necessarily wrong, Falsification! since it is logically inconsistent. The Hypothesis must be rejected.
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States Wingless with blue wing Feather
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States Wingless with blue wing Feather
Results from Violation of the Premise of Character Independence and thus incorrect Character Coding:
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States Wingless with blue wing Feather
Results from Violation of the Premise of Character Independence and thus incorrect Character Coding: Wing Feather Color [multist]
logically depends on Wing [a/p].
Hypothesis Testing in Phylogenetics using Ancestral States
Impossible Ancestral States Wingless with blue wing Feather
Check Results fromError Violation of the Premise of Character Independence and thus incorrect Coding: NoCharacter Plausibility Test Wing Feather Color [multist]
logically depends on Wing [a/p].
SUMMARY
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish : 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish : 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2) direct Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish : 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2) direct Popperian Tests 3) internal Consistency Checks
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish : 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2) direct Popperian Tests 3) internal Consistency Checks
4) indirect Goodness-of-Fit Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish : 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2) direct Popperian Tests 3) internal Consistency Checks
4) indirect Goodness-of-Fit Tests 5) indirect Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Cladistic Analyses 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2) direct Popperian Tests 3) internal Consistency Checks
4) indirect Goodness-of-Fit Tests 5) indirect Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Cladistic Analyses 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2)Not direct Popperian applicable in Tests Cladistic Analyses 3) internal Consistency Checks
4) indirect Goodness-of-Fit Tests 5) indirect Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Cladistic Analyses 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2)Not direct Popperian applicable in Tests Cladistic Analyses 3) internal Consistency Functions as an Checks Error Check
4) indirect Goodness-of-Fit Tests 5) indirect Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Cladistic Analyses 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2)Not direct Popperian applicable in Tests Cladistic Analyses 3) internal Consistency Functions as an Checks Error Check
4) indirectFunctions Goodness-of-Fit Tests as a Control 5) indirect Popperian Tests
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Cladistic Analyses 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2)Not direct Popperian applicable in Tests Cladistic Analyses 3) internal Consistency Functions as an Checks Error Check
4) indirectFunctions Goodness-of-Fit Tests as a Control 5) indirect Popperian Tests
Functions as a Control
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms
Hypothesis Testing for Cladograms We can distinguish :
Cladistic Analyses 1) direct Goodness-of-Fit Tests 2)Not direct Popperian applicable in Tests Cladistic Analyses 3) internal Consistency Functions as an Checks Error Check
4) indirect Function Goodness-of-Fit Tests as a Control
Plausibility 5) indirect Popperian TestsTests Function as a Control
PLAUSIBILITY TESTS for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms Plausibility Tests are independent Tests with
a new Data Source.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms Plausibility Tests are independent Tests with
a new Data Source. They function as a Control.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Consequences from Plausibility Tests Two possible Results:
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Consequences from Plausibility Tests Two possible Results:
congruent with Cladogram
Confirmation
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Consequences from Plausibility Tests Two possible Results:
congruent with Cladogram
Confirmation
incongruent with Cladogram
Go back …
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Consequences from Plausibility Tests Two possible Results:
congruent with Cladogram
Confirmation, Confirmation BUT…
incongruent with Cladogram
Go back …
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms All Plausibility Tests are indirect (extrinsic) Tests that are based on indirect Evidence.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms Problem All Plausibility Tests are indirect (extrinsic) Evaluating indirect Evidence usually Tests that are based on indirect Evidence. involves auxiliary Assumptions
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms Problem All Plausibility Tests are indirect (extrinsic) Evaluating indirect Evidence usually Tests that are based on indirect Evidence. involves auxiliary Assumptions
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests Plausibility Tests can be seen as
methodologically not integrated analytical Approaches.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests Plausibility Tests can be seen as
methodologically not integrated analytical Approaches. They lack a Rationale for Weighting Evidence that is
compatible with the Model used for Reconstructing Phylogenies.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests Plausibility Tests can be seen as
Lack of a UNIVERSAL
methodologically not integrated analytical
WEIGHTING SCHEME Approaches. covering all types for of They lack a Rationale Weighting Evidence relevant Data that is
compatible with the Model used for Reconstructing Phylogenies.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests Plausibility Tests can be seen as
Lack of a UNIVERSAL
methodologically not integrated analytical
We possess only WEIGHTING SCHEME Approaches. covering all types for of They lack Rationales a Rationale local Weighting Evidence relevant Data that is
compatible with the Model used for Reconstructing Phylogenies.
Plausibility Tests for Cladograms
Plausibility Tests Plausibility Tests can be seen as
Lack of a UNIVERSAL The General Problem of methodologically not integrated analytical
We possess only WEIGHTING SCHEME Approaches. all Total Evidence covering all types for of They lack a Rationale local Rationales Approaches! Weighting Evidence relevant Data that is
compatible with the Model used for Reconstructing Phylogenies.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
Plausibility Tests… …are of limited Importance in Phylogenetics, because their Contribution to Decision Making
is very limited!
Conclusion
Plausibility Tests… In terms of Decision Making
…are of limited Importance in Phylogenetics,
regarding the Choice of the currently because their Contribution to Decision Making
Cladogram, Plausibility Tests is verybest limited! have no actual Function!
Conclusion
Plausibility Tests… …are of limited Importance in Phylogenetics, because their Contribution to Decision Making …neither in terms of
is very limited!
Falsification / Corrobration,
Conclusion
Plausibility Tests… …are of limited Importance in Phylogenetics, because their Contribution to Decision Making …nor in terms of
is very limited!
Degree of Support.
Conclusion
Plausibility Tests… …are of limited Importance in Phylogenetics, Plausibility “Tests” do NOT
because their Contribution to Decision Making rd provide a 3 , alternative
is very limited!
Approach to Hypothesis Testing
Conclusion
Indirect Evidence…
Conclusion
Indirect Evidence… …can be relevant for Cladistic Analyses, but requires the development of an appropriate
methodological framework for its Evaluation in comparison to direct Evidence!
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms “The Map is more interesting than the Territory”
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms “The Map is more interesting than the Territory” We seem to be more interested in “(…) the world as juxtaposition” than in “(…) the world as narrative” .
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms “The Map is more interesting than the Territory” We seem to be more interested in “(…) the world as juxtaposition” [a list] than in “(…) the world as narrative” [the history] .
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms Ronald Jenner’s distinction of: chronicle narrative
tree & tree construction
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms Ronald Jenner’s distinction of: chronicle narrative
tree & tree construction vs
historical narrative
tree interpretation & reconstruction of character evolution
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms Ronald Jenner’s distinction of: chronicle narrative tree & treeHypotheses construction Testing Cladogram/Monophyly vs
historical narrative
tree interpretation & reconstruction of character evolution
Hypothesis Testing
Obsession with Cladograms Ronald Jenner’s distinction of: chronicle narrative tree & treeHypotheses construction Testing Cladogram/Monophyly vs tree interpretation & historical narrative reconstruction Science after the Tree of character evolution
SCIENCE AFTER THE TREE We should use cladograms more often to test other evolutionary hypotheses
SCIENCE AFTER THE TREE We should use cladograms more often to test other evolutionary hypotheses e.g. for testing general evolutionary hypotheses as for instance “transformation rates correlate with habitat temperature”
Hypothesis-Testing in Phylogenetics: Falsification vs. Measures of Goodness-of-Fit, and the Question of the Possibility of “Plausibility-Tests“ Lars Vogt, Uni Bonn
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Acknowledgements Alex Gruhl Ronald Jenner Björn Quast Christoph Bleidorn