O 'furore' que vai causar o artigo "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)"

The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)
David L Abel

Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, The Gene Emergence Project of The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc, 113-120 Hedgewood Dr Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610, USA

Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2009, 6:27doi:10.1186/1742-4682-6-27

Published: 3 December 2009

Abstract

Background

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.

Conclusion

No low-probability hypothetical plausibility assertion should survive peer-review without subjection to the UPP inequality standard of formal falsification (ξ < 1).

+++++

FREE PDF GRÁTIS [OPEN ACCESS]

+++++

NOTA BENE:

Este artigo vai causar um grande 'furore' na Nomenklatura científica. Especialmente em relação aos cenários especulativos da teoria geral da evolução de Darwin:

1. Ao explicar por que o progresso da ciência depende da nossa rejeição de teorias falseadas e a não retenção de explicações altamente improváveis:

"But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientific ally productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of “infeasibility” has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, “Is this scenario possible?” The question should be, “Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?” One chance in 10200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling."

2. A inclusão indevida na ciência de conjecturas metafísicas que ignoram ou inflacionam os recursos probabilísticos:

"The application of The Universal Plausibility Principle (UPP) precludes the inclusion in scientific literature of wild metaphysical conjectures that conveniently ignore or illegitimately inflate probabilistic resources to beyond the limits of observational science. The UPM and UPP together prevent rapidly shrinking funding and labor resources from being wasted on preposterous notions that have no legitimate place in science. At best, notions with ξ < 1 should be considered not only operationally falsified hypotheses, but bad metaphysics on a plane equivalent to blind faith and superstition."

+++++

Acho que no Brasil, o Prof. Dr. Décio Krause (UFSC), autor do Introdução aos Fundamentos Axiomáticos da Ciência (São Paulo, EPU, 2002, pp. xii + 211, ISBN 85-12-79110, e João Carlos Marques Magalhães (UFPR) sejam os cientistas brasileiros mais indicados para replicar a tese de Abel.

Um artigo de Krause e Magalhães: Teorias e Modelos em Genética de Populações: Um exemplo do uso do Método Axiomático em Biologia.