Bayesian history of science: The case of Watson and Crick and the structure of DNA

Abstract

A naïve Bayes approach to theory confirmation is used to compute the posterior probabilities for a series of four models of DNA considered by James Watson and Francis Crick in the early 1950s using multiple forms of evidence considered relevant at the time. Conditional probabilities for the evidence given each model are estimated from historical sources and manually assigned using a scale of five probabilities ranging from “strongly consistent” to “strongly inconsistent”. Alternative or competing theories are defined for each model based on preceding models in the series. Prior probabilities are also set based on the posterior probabilities of these earlier models. A dramatic increase in posterior probability is seen for the final double helix model compared to earlier models in the series which is interpreted as a form of “Bayesian surprise” leading to the sense that a “discovery” was made. Implications for theory choice in the history of science are discussed. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00233

Is scientific knowledge socially constructed? A Bayesian account of Laboratory Life

“…For example, we have not examined the views of McCann at the University of Pennsylvania or Harris in England. Thus, we cannot claim that these individuals would have shared the same degree of certainty on the structure of TRF, just as Watson and Crick's model of DNA was not shared by Linus Pauling (Small, 2023). How a group or community of scientists arrives at a consensus on what theory is correct or evidence is most relevant is beyond the scope of this analysis, but a topic worthy of study given that consensus among experts is often used to justify scientific findings to the public (Cole, 1992;Oreskes, 2019).…”

“…An increase in the posterior indicates confirmation, and the ascending pattern for the last three models, all proposed during 1969, signals what Lakatos would call a “progressive problem shift” (Lakatos, 1970 ) where each new model explains additional empirical findings. The discovery was less dramatic and surprising than, for example, the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick (Small, 2023 ), which saw an abrupt increase in the posterior. In the TRF case, the largest increase occurred going from the simple tripeptide model to the acetyl-glu-his-pro model which Burgus experienced as a thrilling moment.…”

“…For example, evidence generated by experiment or direct observation usually carries more weight than evidence based on rules of thumb or analogy to other systems. As shown in a previous study (Small, 2023 ), the probabilities need only be specified approximately using a preset scale ranging qualitatively from “strongly consistent” to “strongly inconsistent” with 0.5 defined as neutral ( Table 1 ). The neutral state means that there are even odds that a piece of evidence is consistent or inconsistent with some hypothesis.…”

“…The purpose of this paper is to show that an alternative and more plausible account of the taken-for-granted or “fact” status of TRF is possible based on a probabilistic treatment of hypotheses and evidence in a Bayesian framework. What emerges from this analysis is that the factual status of a biological substance such as TRF or DNA (Small, 2023 ) is due to its high probability based on the evidence, rather than the operation of social processes. Social and other contingent factors can either accelerate or impede changes in hypotheses or the acquisition of evidence but do not affect the probability that the hypothesis is correct.…”

In-Depth Analysis of Contributing Factors Impacting Grade 12 Learners' Performance in Life Sciences “Investigation Questions”: A South African Case Study

“…2.1 Science investigation in South Africa's curriculum Scientific investigation encompasses the many methods employed by scientists to examine the natural world and formulate interpretations grounded in the data obtained from their research (Small, 2023). This concept was established based on comprehending the methodology of scientific progress and is not influenced by educational procedures.…”