Nearly everything in biology is proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) with statistics. I use statistics all of the time in my work. For example, statistics is an invaluable tool for determining how confident we are that a difference in gene expression between two groups is real. In all of the RNA-Seq data I report, I specify a false discovery rate (FDR) in my reported results, and the FDR comes from statistics.
To use an analogy, you might as well be telling a group of mechanics that wrenches arenāt used to fix cars.
Iāve only done it when a sequence really looks strange, when compared to the things it should be close to (after Iāve checked that it isnāt just backwards). Which usually indicates that it is actually from a parasite, rather than the intended organism.
Some examples that I have interacted with (outside of genetics): morphometric analyses, rarefaction curves, diversity indices, phylogenetic studies, etc.
It is not so much ācanātā (prevent) as āunableā (understand).
The case in point?
You have to know what size wrench to use and
sometimes the wrench is not the right tool
Both of which apply in favour of my argument and not yours. (theirs?)
IOW I am happy to consider statistics as a tool but you have to understand the limits of that tool. Statistics do not make the affirmation and verification you claim.
Richard
PS I have changed my mind. That was a brilliant analogy, but it shot him in the foot!
And some customers complain the mechanic is using an imperial wrench on a metric bolt due to a lack of training in the mechanical arts that teaches some wrenches are interchangeable. If you want to argue using analogy.
I have always thought of them as demonstrating understanding of the thing you are describing. And to use a personal or unique analogy is to show that you do (or sometimes do not) understand what you are talking about.
I accept that it takes a certain type of thinking to use analogies successfully and it seems that the more empirical your understanding the harder it is to grasp what an analogy is trying to purvey.
The problem is when the analogy misses the mark. (or is not understood) How do you explain it? And what does it do to the self-esteem of the user/viewer? (The last one being something I clearly struggle with)
And, of course, very few analogies are precise enough to be exact.
They are in the same league as metaphors, similes and parables, having the capacity to communicate on the poetic level. But that is in the domain of human experience. In the empirical domain different tools are preferable.
Oh absolutely, but only in the human domain which is where I place the spiritual, sacred, divine or whatever it may be called. To argue something empirical based on an inference that an ancient book of sacred texts is making references to questions never directly conceived of at the time it was written is absurd, especially if you are arguing with people who do not share your theological interpretation.
Objective evidence is independent of theological interpretation. And we have some that definitively implies that Godās interventions are not from āonly in the human domainā.
The problem comes when the listener does not want to accept what the analogy shows. It does not matter how good or accurate the analogy is, it will be deemed irrelevant because they do not want it to apply to them (or their theory). It cannot. They have already dismissed it. If it did they might have to change their convictions. Therefore it does not apply, And there is no way to convince them otherwise.
If it doesnāt apply from their perspective it has no persuasive power. There is no fact of the matter in all cases, at least in the human domain (something @Dale fails to see). In the empirical domain there can be and usually is whether or not we have the means to make that determination. But no one is obliged to accept an argument based on facts which are in contention within the human domain, especially not regarding how things stand in the measurable world.
The problem comes from trying to argue against the empirical by using a man made analogy. An analogy can illustrate a point, but it can never prove a point.
Sure there is. Provide some data that doesnāt fit the theory.
That is not the point of an analogy. Often the analogy is defined to make you look at the same data differently. (But that is impossible)
And besides the same logic applies. You will not see anything that contradicts your convictions, or accept any notion or interpretation that does likewise. You are right!
(I am as well, of course) And you are in the majority (here at least) So what you say will hold sway. (And eventually the thread will be forced to close)
It is an infallible argument. You are right. Your interpretation of the data is right, And there can be no data or interpretation to change that.