Graduate studies at Western
Biology and Philosophy 20 (4):925-926 (2005)
|Abstract||In science, it sometimes occurs that an event is directly observed, and on other occasions that it is not directly observed but one can make the unambiguous inference that it has occurred. Is there any difference concerning the analysis of data arising from these two situations? In this note we show that there is such a difference in one case arising frequently in genetics. The difference derives from the fact that the ability to make the unambiguous inference arises only from a restricted form of data.|
|Keywords||inference observation transmission/disequilibrium disease locus gene transmission|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joel Pust (2011). Sleeping Beauty and Direct Inference. Analysis 71 (2):290-293.
Paul D. Thorn (2012). Two Problems of Direct Inference. Erkenntnis 76 (3):299-318.
Mark Day & George S. Botterill (2008). Contrast, Inference and Scientific Realism. Synthese 160 (2):249 - 267.
Isaac Levi (1981). Direct Inference and Confirmational Conditionalization. Philosophy of Science 48 (4):532-552.
Myron L. Braunstein (2001). A Better Understanding of Inference Can Reconcile Constructivist and Direct Theories. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (1):99-99.
P. Kosso (2000). The Empirical Status of Symmetries in Physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1):81-98.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,434 of 726,777 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 726,777 )
How can I increase my downloads?