Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1187080202

From: John Plant <>
Subject: Re: Calculating The Joint Probability Of False Paternity Events [FPE]
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:30:02 +0100

> In a message dated 8/10/2007 2:36:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> I started my career as a research physicist. I have around a dozen
> publications in "alpha rated" science journals about neutron
> diffraction/scattering studies of solids; quantum chemistry of
> vitamin B6.
> No-one's perfect! How about you?>>
> ----------------
> I started in Astrophysics, switched to Computer Science and Math.
> Got my double-major in that field.
> I have no publications in any field.
> I don't need any to see the holes in your logic. You refuse to
discuss the sample set and it's problem as a set. That's a basic
requirement for analysis of the set. So far you have yet to do it.
> You just keep arguing there's no need to do it. But there is a need
to do it.
> The 2% to 5% is a made-up number. Based on *no* analysis showing the
raw data. It's a basic requirement that a claim can be verified and
falsified. I have a hard time believing your background if you don't
think this major underpinning of the scientific method.
> Your claim cannot be verified or falsified can it?
> Will


These are not holes in "my" logic. It was not me who set off on this
line of reasoning. I agree that 2% to 5% is *rather* arbitrary. I have
said all along that it is just a "ball park" figure. It comes from the
GENEALOGY-DNA discussion list where they have a better feel for the
current "state of the art". As more data becomes available, there will
presumably be improved estimates of what are typical rates for various
populations. This is not an exact science, however, and it is you more
than me who is trying to discuss it as though it were one.


This thread: