Yeah, we agree; this is exactly what I think.
1 Like
If I could add my two cents . . .
Scientists working in the field of molecular biology tend to be a bit skeptical of postdictions. This is due to ābig dataā papers in genetics that have become popular over the last 20 years. Genetic association studies have found both true and false correlations between alleles and phenotypes, as one example. I could write multiple paragraphs about the pitfalls of the early gene chip data sets and studies. The ENCODE study is another example. These types have experiments are often met with skepticism, and for good reason. Of course, all science should be looked at skeptically, so thereās that.
The danger here is forming your hypothesis after data analysis. With a big enough data set you are almost guaranteed to find false associations that are statistically significant. This is probably why biostatisticians are in higher demand these days.
2 Likes
Thatās not even close to what you wrote:
How do you reconcile the incompatibility of those two statements?
Linguistic usage versus ontologically precise categorization are different. In context it seems pretty clear the meaning of those quotes.
Granted Iām reading my own mind here, but is anyone else confused?
In or out of context, they are contradictory.
In the context of @PdotdQās objection to what I wrote to Sal, what was the point other than pedantry?
That makes absolutely no sense, since I defined in the broadest way. Pedantry appears to be the only reason, particularly since Sal flounced long ago.
Say, have you ever publicly admitted an error?
I have publicly admitted error many many times. Have you?
1 Like
Yes, right here in this forum. You have liked them.
But you didnāt admit error on somatic hypermutation and your justifications here make no sense at all.