Table 5. 

Watson’s like-with-like model (Watson/Crick triple helix as competing model)

ProbabilityEstimateInterpretationEvidence
P(T) 0.24 prior of T posterior probability for W/C triple-helix 
P(∼T) 0.76 prior of ∼T 1 − prior 
P(E1|T) 0.7 strongly consistent B-form X-ray picture predicted by the Cochran-Crick-Vand theory 
P(E1|∼T) 0.7 strongly consistent Triple helix also supported by the B-form X-ray 
P(E2|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent 34 Å crystallographic repeat for B-form not possible with like-with-like model 
P(E2|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent 34 Å crystallographic repeat for W/C triple helix not possible 
P(E3|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like bond lengths wrong 
P(E3|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix bond lengths wrong 
P(E4|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like C2 symmetry not present 
P(E4|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix C2 symmetry not present 
P(E5|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like Chargaff’s rules violated 
P(E5|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix Chargaff’s rules violated 
P(E6|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like hydrogen-bonding incorrect 
P(E6|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix hydrogen-bonds not possible 
P(E7|T) 0.6 weakly consistent Like-with-like replication mechanism possible 
P(E7|∼T) 0.4 weakly inconsistent Triple-helix had no replication mechanism 
P(T|E1–E7) 0.32 confirm % change = +33.3, LR = 1.5 
ProbabilityEstimateInterpretationEvidence
P(T) 0.24 prior of T posterior probability for W/C triple-helix 
P(∼T) 0.76 prior of ∼T 1 − prior 
P(E1|T) 0.7 strongly consistent B-form X-ray picture predicted by the Cochran-Crick-Vand theory 
P(E1|∼T) 0.7 strongly consistent Triple helix also supported by the B-form X-ray 
P(E2|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent 34 Å crystallographic repeat for B-form not possible with like-with-like model 
P(E2|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent 34 Å crystallographic repeat for W/C triple helix not possible 
P(E3|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like bond lengths wrong 
P(E3|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix bond lengths wrong 
P(E4|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like C2 symmetry not present 
P(E4|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix C2 symmetry not present 
P(E5|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like Chargaff’s rules violated 
P(E5|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix Chargaff’s rules violated 
P(E6|T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like hydrogen-bonding incorrect 
P(E6|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Triple-helix hydrogen-bonds not possible 
P(E7|T) 0.6 weakly consistent Like-with-like replication mechanism possible 
P(E7|∼T) 0.4 weakly inconsistent Triple-helix had no replication mechanism 
P(T|E1–E7) 0.32 confirm % change = +33.3, LR = 1.5 
View Large
Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. No content on this site may be used to train artificial intelligence systems without permission in writing from the MIT Press.
Accept