PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15653494

Testing hypotheses: prediction and prejudice.

Peter Lipton
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Observations that fit a hypothesis may be made before or after the hypothesis is formulated. Can that difference be relevant to the amount of support that the observations provide for the hypothesis? Philosophers of science and statisticians are both divided on this question, but there is an argument that predictions ought to count more than accommodations, because of the risk of "fudging" that accommodations run and predictions avoid.

Explore related subjects

Empirical ResearchForecastingLogicObservationResearch DesignScienceJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Lipton. 2005-01-14. Testing hypotheses: prediction and prejudice.. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103024

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Decentralisation and convergence in health among the provinces of Spain (1980-2001).

This study measures the process of convergence in the state of health among the provinces and regions of Spain during 1980-2001 in order to analyse the possible influence of the decentralisation of healthcare management to the regions in this period. Sigma and beta convergence models, traditionally employed in macroeconomics, have been used, taking Life Expectancy at Birth (LEB) and Infant Mortality (IM) as health indicators. The analysis was carried out at two territorial levels: provinces and regions. The results reveal that the process of decentralisation either does not affect convergence or leads to divergence in health. Indeed, in the case of IM the so-called change of role scenario seems to have occurred. Thus, certain provinces with initially poor indicators have improved, overtaking those that were originally in a better position. The final result, however, is of greater dispersion than initially.

Empirical Research↗
PubMed2006

[History of vaccination: from empiricism towards recombinant vaccines].

PURPOSE: Two hundreds years after the discovery of the smallpox vaccine, immunization remains one of the most powerful tools of preventive medicine. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS: Immunization was born with Jenner, then Pasteur and expanded during the 19th and 20th century. It started with the empirical observation of cross-immunity between two diseases, cowpox and smallpox. It became a real science, with pathogen isolation, culture and attenuation or inactivation, to prepare a vaccine. Together with clinical and biological efficacy studies and adverse events assessments, it constructed the concept of "vaccinology". Protein conjugation of polyosidic vaccines has made possible early immunisation of infants. Nowadays, recombinant, reassortant, or virus-like particles technologies open the road for new vaccines. FUTURE PROSPECTS: Ongoing research opens the way for the development of new vaccines that will help to control transmittable diseases for which we are lacking antimicrobial agents.

Empirical Research↗