Comparative, continuity, and computational evidence in evolutionary theory: Predictive evidence versus productive evidence
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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGuido 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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #202,139 of 551,105 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,341 of 551,105 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
