PubMed · 14956019
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1952-08-23. MR. H. E. Moore.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14956019/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The present article corrects common textbook accounts of Mendel's experiments by re-establishing what he wrote and how he accounted for his observations. It notes the long-established tests for the validity of any explanations that purport to explain observations obtained by experiment. Application of these tests to Mendel's paper shows that the arguments he used to explain his observations were internally consistent but were, on one crucial issue, implausible. The same tests are applied to the currently accepted explanation for Mendel's observations. CONCLUSIONS: The currently favoured explanation for Mendel's observations is untenable. It misrepresents Mendel, fails to distinguish between the parameters and the variables of any system of interacting components, its arguments are inconsistent, it repeats the implausibility in Mendel's paper, fails to give a rational explanation for his observed 3:1 trait ratio and cannot explain why this ratio is not always observed in experimental practice. A rational explanation for Mendel's observations is initiated. Readers are challenged to complete the process before a further article appears.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.