Comparative, continuity, and computational evidence in evolutionary theory: Predictive evidence versus productive evidence
Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (3):294-296 (2006)
|Abstract||Of three types of evidence available to evolution theorists – comparative, continuity, and computational – the first is largely productive rather than predictive. Although comparison between extant species or languages is possible and can be suggestive of evolutionary processes, leading to theory development, comparison with extinct species and languages seems necessary for validation. Continuity and computational evidence provide the best opportunities for supporting predictions.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Simon A. Cole, Toward Evidence-Based Evidence: Supporting Forensic Knowledge Claims in the Post-Daubert Era.
Kent W. Staley (2004). Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims. Philosophy of Science 71:467-488.
Guido Fioretti (2001). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence for G.L.S. Shackle. Mind and Society 2 (1):77-98.
Alex Stein (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Branden Fitelson & Richard Feldman (2012). Evidence of Evidence is Not (Necessarily) Evidence. Analysis 72 (1):85-88.
Peter Lipton (1990). Prediction and Prejudice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):51 – 65.
Mary B. Williams (1973). Falsifiable Predictions of Evolutionary Theory. Philosophy of Science 40 (4):518-537.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #214,762 of 752,081 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,163 of 752,081 )
How can I increase my downloads?