Table 6. 

Watson and Crick’s final double helix model (like-with-like as the alternative)

ProbabilityEstimateInterpretationEvidence
P(T) 0.32 prior of T posterior of like-with-like model 
P(∼T) 0.68 prior of not T 1 − prior 
P(E1|T) 0.7 strongly consistent X-ray picture of B-form supports helix via theory 
P(E1|∼T) 0.7 strongly consistent Like-with-like model is also a helix 
P(E2|T) 0.7 strongly consistent 34 Å crystallographic repeat (B form X-ray picture) 
P(E2|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like model did not give a 34 Å repeat 
P(E3|T) 0.7 strongly consistent bond lengths fit 
P(E3|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like bond lengths did not fit 
P(E4|T) 0.7 strongly consistent C2 symmetry of structure 
P(E4|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like model lacked C2 symmetry 
P(E5|T) 0.7 strongly consistent obeys Chargaff’s rules 
P(E5|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like inconsistent with Chargaff rules 
P(E6|T) 0.7 strongly consistent hydrogen bonding of bases correct 
P(E6|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like model has hydrogen bonding wrong 
P(E7|T) 0.6 weakly consistent mechanism for replication suggested 
P(E7|∼T) 0.6 weakly consistent Like-with-like also gave mechanism for replication 
P(T|E1–E7) 0.97 Confirm % change = +203.1, LR = 69.2 
ProbabilityEstimateInterpretationEvidence
P(T) 0.32 prior of T posterior of like-with-like model 
P(∼T) 0.68 prior of not T 1 − prior 
P(E1|T) 0.7 strongly consistent X-ray picture of B-form supports helix via theory 
P(E1|∼T) 0.7 strongly consistent Like-with-like model is also a helix 
P(E2|T) 0.7 strongly consistent 34 Å crystallographic repeat (B form X-ray picture) 
P(E2|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like model did not give a 34 Å repeat 
P(E3|T) 0.7 strongly consistent bond lengths fit 
P(E3|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like bond lengths did not fit 
P(E4|T) 0.7 strongly consistent C2 symmetry of structure 
P(E4|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like model lacked C2 symmetry 
P(E5|T) 0.7 strongly consistent obeys Chargaff’s rules 
P(E5|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like inconsistent with Chargaff rules 
P(E6|T) 0.7 strongly consistent hydrogen bonding of bases correct 
P(E6|∼T) 0.3 strongly inconsistent Like-with-like model has hydrogen bonding wrong 
P(E7|T) 0.6 weakly consistent mechanism for replication suggested 
P(E7|∼T) 0.6 weakly consistent Like-with-like also gave mechanism for replication 
P(T|E1–E7) 0.97 Confirm % change = +203.1, LR = 69.2 
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