And if we want to get more secure, we have to do the same experiment over and over again. This is as good as it gets according to Popper: a surprise that our initial hypothesis of no difference in allele frequencies in cases and controls is quite unlikely. And the level of our surprise is the p-value. For example, if we would like to demonstrate that the ME2 gene predisposes to epilepsy, we need to do the opposite: we aim to show that there is no association (the null hypothesis) and are subsequently surprised if our finding is not in line with our initial assumption. While this statement might sound slightly dry and theoretical, this actually has profound implications: this is how we work in biomedical science today. ![]() We cannot prove a scientific hypothesis to be true, but we can only exhaust ourselves trying to prove this hypothesis wrong. According to Popper, the very essence of science is falsifiability. I remember that we discussed Karl Popper in my high school philosophy class and that his concept of science was both clear and simple enough for me to remember. Let me take you on a brief journey through the philosophy of genomics starting with Kuhn’s nemesis, Karl Popper.īack to high school. ![]() Kuhn believed that scientists work within a given set of paradigms and believes that they don’t really question them – until everything falls apart. In fact, the concept of paradigm changes in science was made popular by Thomas Kuhn, an American physicist, historian, and philosopher of science. During our bioinformatics workshop in Leuven, Roland pointed out that I tend to use the phrase “ paradigm shift” too liberally.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |