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
author email corresponding author email
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2009, 6:27doi:10.1186/1742-4682-6-27
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27
Received: 29 September 2009
Accepted: 3 December 2009
Published: 3 December 2009
© 2009 Abel; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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).
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Este artigo de Abel vai quebrar o côco de muitos epistemólogos, e desacreditar muitas teorias e modelos científicos que 'arrotam' plausibilidade científica como se isso fosse passe livre para considerá-los científicos!!!
Alô Galera dos meninos e meninas de Darwin, creio que o paper está além do nivel de cognição de vocês: é nitroglicerina epistêmica pura!!! Poucos na Nomenklatura científica tupiniquim ousariam replicar numa publicação com revisão por pares. Alguém aceita o desafio? Envie um e-mail para mim: neddy@uol.com.br dizendo que você topa a parada!!!
+++++
