首页> 外文期刊>Cladistics: The international journal of the Willi Hennig Society >Why phylogeneticists should care less about Popper's falsificationism
【24h】

Why phylogeneticists should care less about Popper's falsificationism

机译:为什么系统进化论者应该较少关注波普尔的证伪主义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Again and again, biologists have based their argumentation on Popper’s falsi?cationism to defend their position—especially in the context of phylogenetics and biological classi?cation. For instance, during the debate regarding whether phylogenetic systematics or evolutionary classi?cation represents the best method of classi?cation, proponents of either side based their argumentation on Popper (e.g. Bock, 1973; Wiley et al., 1975; Kitts, 1977; Cracraft, 1978; Platnick and Gaffney, 1978). Popper has also been referred to in the discussion about the justi?cation of the best method of reconstructing phylogeny by proponents of both parsimony and likelihood alike (e.g. Farris, 1983; Kluge, 1997; Siddall and Kluge, 1997; Faith and Trueman, 2001; de Queiroz and Poe, 2001; Vogt, 2007). And now biologists refer to Popper again, this time in the discussion regarding the philosophical justication of the Bayesian approach in phylogenetics (Helfenbein and DeSalle, 2005; Randle and Pickett, 2010; Farris, 2013).
机译:生物学家一次又一次地以波普尔的幻想主义为根据来捍卫自己的立场,尤其是在系统发育和生物学分类的背景下。例如,在关于系统分类学或进化分类是否代表最佳分类方法的辩论中,双方的支持者都基于波普尔的论证(例如Bock,1973; Wiley等人,1975; Kitts,1977; William等人)。 Cracraft,1978年; Platnick和Gaffney,1978年)。在关于简约性和似然性的支持者重建系统发育的最佳方法的论证中,也提到了波普尔(例如Farris,1983; Kluge,1997; Siddall和Kluge,1997; Faith和Trueman,2001)。 ; de Queiroz和Poe,2001; Vogt,2007)。现在生物学家再一次提到波普尔,这次是在有关系统进化学中贝叶斯方法的哲学论证的讨论中(Helfenbein和DeSalle,2005; Randle和Pickett,2010; Farris,2013)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号