The Role of Philosophy in Science: Separating Fact from Fiction

[Fliption]

Maybe you should have done a better job at writing down what you really meant. Besides i still don't see it.

So now you're having to resort to attacks on mistakes and typos? This is sad Marlon. There is no topic worth ruining your objectivity over to this extent. Just relax. People will disagree with you all your life. And some of them will be right.

So you are unable to explain this to me? What the hell do you think all the real scientists are doing on this forum here when they are helping people out,hmmm?

I assume you mean the people participating in the science forums? I would hope they are pointing to relevant text when the only other option is to write 600 pages of explanations.

I am beginning to wonder if you would even know what you are talking about...

Sometimes my cat wonders the same thing. Maybe you two could have a discussion about it.

hahahah, ohh my god...you really believe this? You are going to have to do a lot better then this man...

Good one. How can I possibly counter such strong arguments. Maybe if I use "hahaha" a little more, that would help the strength of my arguments?

Well in that case, i am sure you can provide me with at least three concrete examples and answers, wouldn't you say ?

marlon

Three concrete examples of what? Libraries full of explanations on how philosophy and science relates? If you're still looking for examples along the lines of "high Tc superconductor etc etc then you have been left behind. We have moved beyond this. You'll have to catch up with Zapper and ask him what you guys are going do next.

 

[ZapperZ]

Regarding algorithmic information theory, it can been seen as a formal restatement of Ockham's razor. And Ockham's razor is of major importance. It not a screening tool or curious observation or a crutch. I would argue that Ockham's razor is the scientific method. All theories in physics are based on Ockham's razor. They have been accepted since they best fulfill this criteria. There is an infinite number of theories that can incorporate all empirical evidence. But there is only one theory that passes Ockham's razor.

Sorry, but there's an "infinite" number of theories that can incorporate ALL emprical evidence? Did you just made this up?

You still have failed to show me ONE such theory in which Ockham's razor is the criteria of acceptance, and not "screen tool", or "curious observation", or " crutch". You have given nothing, no examples, other than lip service here.

Zz.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The modern academic subject Philosophy especially metaphysics has very little to no impact on physics people like fliption and metacristi are more than anything else showing their ignornace. In fact the term 'metaphysics' is used as an insult more than anything else by physicsts, yet we are to believe that these philosophers who are viewed with derision by many physicists are infact directing and controlling the whole process!

Fliption mentioned strawman, do you know what a “strawman” argument is? It is when one misrepresents an opponent one is debating, usually portraying their views as stupid, illogical, evil, irrelevant, etc. so that what appears to be a justified attack can be mounted against their opinions.

Is my computer missing posts that would explain why at least four participants keep claiming “we are to believe that these philosophers . . . are infact directing and controlling the whole process”? The point has been conceded several times that philosophy does NOT play a role during research. So why are you making arguments against it? I can find nothing Metacristi said, or Hypnagogue said, or I said, or Cogito said, or Fliption said . . . Who said it, who implied it, whose brain did you psychically detect it loitering in the recesses of?

Such discussions are not being held in your lab are they? Has anyone come knocking on your door like a Philosophy Witness trying to contaminate your science? Are philosophy propaganda leaflets being dropped from the sky all over your neighborhood? What are you so paranoid about? If I hear anyone demand again to know how philosophy is used in active research I am going to start wondering if Rainman is your brother.

Besides offering my personal opinion on how philosophy might benefit PF, we on the philosophy side have been ONLY saying there may still be potential value in continuing to contemplate the epistemology behind science, not during the ongoing practice of science in the laboratory (duhhhhhh ), but apart from that by thinkers who are interested in the subject. In case you don’t know it, that’s how humanity came up with empiricism in the first place. Those who want to understand why empiricism works, to what extent it works, what if any useful adjustments could be made to areas such as inductive theorization or interpretation of results . . . are not interested in intruding into your practice science! Geez Louise .

 

[ZapperZ]

Then please follow the link and take it up with Einstein. Not me.

I have read the link (quickly) and I've read at least 3 different biographies of Einstein. His ideas and vision of what the physical universe should be cannot be entirely attributed to a "philosophy". Saying this would be insulting to the way he has developed his ideas and diminished his understanding of physics!

It is why I brought up the High-Tc case. Almost everyone in it is still alive!

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

Sorry, but there's an "infinite" number of theories that can incorporate ALL emprical evidence? Did you just made this up?

You still have failed to show me ONE such theory in which Ockham's razor is the criteria of acceptance, and not "screen tool", or "curious observation", or " crutch". You have given nothing, no examples, other than lip service here.

As I have said, all theories in science are accepted by using Ockham's razor. Let's take the Ptolemaic theory. It is possible to modify this so it fits all empirical evidence. One example is add a rule to the theory that says that all seemingly contradictory empirical evidence is caused by Satan who creates hallucinations. Thus, only supporting evidence should be considered. Or that all who give contradictory evidence is part of a giant conspiracy. Or that the evidence is real but is created by God temporarily and that he immediately restores the Ptolemaic system whenever one stops observing. Or that all the evidence is created by faulty equipment, atmosphere phenomena, madness or visual hallucinations.

Thus there is an infinite number of theories that fits the empirical data. But only one theory that passes Ockham's razor.

 

[Fliption]

I have read the link (quickly) and I've read at least 3 different biographies of Einstein. His ideas and vision of what the physical universe should be cannot be entirely attributed to a "philosophy". Saying this would be insulting to the way he has developed his ideas and diminished his understanding of physics!

It is why I brought up the High-Tc case. Almost everyone in it is still alive!

This seems a bit picky. Einstein's ideas and visions have no more or less credibility then "philosophy". Are you suggesting they do? It is all metaphysics.

 

[ZapperZ]

As I have said, all theories in science are accepted by using Ockham's razor. Let's take the Ptolemaic theory. It is possible to modify this so it fits all empirical evidence. One example is add a rule to the theory that says that all seemingly contradictory empirical evidence is caused by Satan who creates hallucinations. Thus, only supporting evidence should be considered. Or that all who give contradictory evidence is part of a giant conspiracy. Or that the evidence is real but is created by God temporarily and that he immediately restores the Ptolemaic system whenever one stops observing. Or that all the evidence is created by faulty equipment, atmosphere phenomena, madness or visual hallucinations.

Thus there is an infinite number of theories that fits the empirical data. But only one theory that passes Ockham's razor.

OH... MY... GOD!

It is obvious that, while you espouse the "Scientific Method", you have absolutely no clue what it is, and what a "scientific evidence" is. I mean, what other explanations can there be for you to put on the SAME level "Ptolemic theory", and "empirical evidence caused by Satan", and etc... Are you one of those who can't tell the difference between the theory of evolution and the so-called intelligent design? And considering that you keep talking about "modern philosophy of science", how about finding an example from within "modern physics" of the last century, for heavens sake!

If this is the kind of logic that I'm faced with, then I give up. You win! And if this is the kind of "philosophical logic" that we depend on to inform of others about science, then hey, who needs enemies?

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

OH... MY... GOD!

It is obvious that, while you espouse the "Scientific Method", you have absolutely no clue what it is, and what a "scientific evidence" is. I mean, what other explanations can there be for you to put on the SAME level "Ptolemic theory", and "empirical evidence caused by Satan", and etc... Are you one of those who can't tell the difference between the theory of evolution and the so-called intelligent design? And considering that you keep talking about "modern philosophy of science", how about finding an example from within "modern physics" of the last century, for heavens sake!

If this is the kind of logic that I'm faced with, then I give up. You win! And if this is the kind of "philosophical logic" that we depend on to inform of others about science, then hey, who needs enemies?

Zz.

You have not explained why my alternative explanations of the empirical evidence is worse than the current one. My explanations fit all the empirical evidence. Now, you are correctly rejecting these explanations based on intuition and on the majority opnion of other scientists. But until now you probably didn't know why. The answer is Ockham's razor.

 

[ZapperZ]

This seems a bit picky. Einstein's ideas and visions have no more or less credibility then "philosophy". Are you suggesting they do? It is all metaphysics.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that he developed Special Relativity out of a "philosophy"? What would this philosphy be, then, and how did this played a role? I, on the other hand, argue that he arrived at his postulates because he (and a lot of other physicists at that time) were driven to it due to the problems of non-covariant of Maxwell Equations. Without this, I don't care what philosphical ideas he adopts, there will never be Special Relativity.

In any case, I thought we have SETTLED the issue of whether philosphy plays any significant role (or not) in the development and day-to-day workings of physics. Maybe I made this assumption wrongly with regards to your view. But if I haven't, what in the world are we debating now? That philosophy DID play a major role in Einstein's body of work?

It's getting confusing. On one hand, I keep reading people claiming I'm fighting an imaginary battle.. that no one is disagreeing with me on this point. And yet, I keep coming up with this bits and pieces of "evidence" that seems to want to claim that, yes, philosophy DID contribute to that and that physics theory and idea.

I must be halllucinating again...

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

I mean, what other explanations can there be for you to put on the SAME level "Ptolemic theory", and "empirical evidence caused by Satan", and etc...

I think that you completely missed the point. Aquamarine made the alternative theory ridiculous on purpose. He isn't saying that one is wrong to reject the theory, he's trying to get you to understand why people reject it. But I think you dismissed his post as nonsense just by seeing the word "Satan".

If you don't like what he said, then consider a less dramatic example (I'm borrowing this from an former PF member named Ambitwistor). You have 100 data points that look very much like they fall along a straight line, but they don't quite all fit it exactly. In fact, none of them actually touches the best line at all. So what do you do? Do you fit the line to the curve? Or do you fit a 100th degree polynomial so that every single data point is on the curve?

Most scientists choose the first option, and they do so because of Occam's razor.

 

[jcsd]

Directing and controlling the whole process? Who said this? I may be ignorant about many things but my club on this topic is a big one and, as I've shown, includes Einstein. Yours is a club that argues against an ill constructed strawman. The reason you can't argue against what has been suggested by many here(as opposed to this strawman you've presented) is because you don't understand it. But then why should you attempt to understand anything except science right?

And just because a group of poor philosophers all think metaphysics is an insult doesn't make it so.

Ok how is that a strawman !?? Is there any other way to take your CEO analogy? Your obscuring the fact that it's the academic subject of philosphy that's being argued against (and I believe Einstein was a physicist).

 

[jcsd]

Fliption mentioned strawman, do you know what a “strawman” argument is? It is when one misrepresents an opponent one is debating, usually portraying their views as stupid, illogical, evil, irrelevant, etc. so that what appears to be a justified attack can be mounted against their opinions.

Is my computer missing posts that would explain why at least four participants keep claiming “we are to believe that these philosophers . . . are infact directing and controlling the whole process”? The point has been conceded several times that philosophy does NOT play a role during research. So why are you making arguments against it? I can find nothing Metacristi said, or Hypnagogue said, or I said, or Cogito said, or Fliption said . . . Who said it, who implied it, whose brain did you psychically detect it loitering in the recesses of?

Such discussions are not being held in your lab are they? Has anyone come knocking on your door like a Philosophy Witness trying to contaminate your science? Are philosophy propaganda leaflets being dropped from the sky all over your neighborhood? What are you so paranoid about? If I hear anyone demand again to know how philosophy is used in active research I am going to start wondering if Rainman is your brother.

Besides offering my personal opinion on how philosophy might benefit PF, we on the philosophy side have been ONLY saying there may still be potential value in continuing to contemplate the epistemology behind science, not during the ongoing practice of science in the laboratory (duhhhhhh ), but apart from that by thinkers who are interested in the subject. In case you don’t know it, that’s how humanity came up with empiricism in the first place. Those who want to understand why empiricism works, to what extent it works, what if any useful adjustments could be made to areas such as inductive theorization or interpretation of results . . . are not interested in intruding into your practice science! Geez Louise .

Ohh you've done it now! Come the revolution philsophers will be swinging from the lamp posts! (after I've dealt with the Trots and the art critics).

 

[ZapperZ]

You have not explained why my alternative explanations of the empirical evidence is worse than the current one. My explanations fit all the empirical evidence. Now, you are correctly rejecting these explanations based on intuition and on the majority opnion of other scientists. But until now you probably didn't know why. The answer is Ockham's razor.

Thank you for educating me on that. Till now, I thought what I had was just indigestion.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that he developed Special Relativity out of a "philosophy"? What would this philosphy be, then, and how did this played a role? I, on the other hand, argue that he arrived at his postulates because he (and a lot of other physicists at that time) were driven to it due to the problems of non-covariant of Maxwell Equations. Without this, I don't care what philosphical ideas he adopts, there will never be Special Relativity.

In any case, I thought we have SETTLED the issue of whether philosphy plays any significant role (or not) in the development and day-to-day workings of physics. Maybe I made this assumption wrongly with regards to your view. But if I haven't, what in the world are we debating now? That philosophy DID play a major role in Einstein's body of work?

Did Einstein's science teacher have anything to do with relativity? Not directly , no. But did this teacher have an impact? Perhaps.

It's getting confusing. On one hand, I keep reading people claiming I'm fighting an imaginary battle.. that no one is disagreeing with me on this point. And yet, I keep coming up with this bits and pieces of "evidence" that seems to want to claim that, yes, philosophy DID contribute to that and that physics theory and idea.
Zz.

I'm confused as well. You said you understood and even agreed with what Hypnagogue wrote but then whenever someone tries to say that philsoophy has had an impact on science, you freak out as if someone is claiming you have to insert a philosophical step into your laboratory experiment.

 

[Fliption]

Ok how is that a starwman !?? Is there any other way to take your \EO analogy? Your obscuring the fact that it's the cademoic subject of philosphy that's being argued against and I believe Einstein was a physicist.

Claiming that I said that Philosophy directs and controls the whole process is a strawman because I did not say that. That didn't stop you from attacking it, however. I don't understand the rest of your post.

 

[jcsd]

earlier you compared a philospher to a CEO and a physicist to a production line worker, how were we meant to take this analogy then?

 

[ZapperZ]

I think that you completely missed the point. Aquamarine made the alternative theory ridiculous on purpose. He isn't saying that one is wrong to reject the theory, he's trying to get you to understand why people reject it. But I think you dismissed his post as nonsense just by seeing the word "Satan".

If you don't like what he said, then consider a less dramatic example (I'm borrowing this from an former PF member named Ambitwistor). You have 100 data points that look very much like they fall along a straight line, but they don't quite all fit it exactly. In fact, none of them actually touches the best line at all. So what do you do? Do you fit the line to the curve? Or do you fit a 100th degree polynomial so that every single data point is on the curve?

Most scientists choose the first option, and they do so because of Occam's razor.

No Tom, I actually DID understand the purpose of such examples. However, we don't need to go to such ridiculous extent to illustrate such thing. There's one going on right now! I picked the high-Tc example because of such "multiple scenario explanation" for the body of empirical evidence. There are at least two different camps fighting it out this very minute on the mechanism of high-Tc : the phonon picture, and the magnetic/spin fluctuation picture. Both side are claiming that all the body of empirical evidence support the scenario they "believe in".

Now, apply Occam's Razor there! If Aquamarine is correct, this is trivial! We apply it, and go home, and that's that. However, when there are two equally valid ideas on equal footing (which happens A LOT in physics), claiming that Occam's Razo solves everything is extremely naive and ignorant of what REALLY happens in physics more often than not! No one fits a 100th order polynomial when a 2nd order will do. I would give a month's salary to end up with this kinds of decisions to know which is correct. Throughout my professional career, I have NEVER been faced with this easy of a scenario in choosing which ones to use. Never! And I will challenge anyone else to point out where in physics currently is there a similar situation where simply by applying Occam's razor, we can pick the winner. Pick up this week's issue of Phys. Rev. Lett. and go at it.

It is only when we TEST these seemingly two theories on equal footing on areas where they DIVERGE will we finally able to select which is the one that's valid. This isn't occam's razor, it's pure, down and dirty experimental evidence.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm confused as well. You said you understood and even agreed with what Hypnagogue wrote but then whenever someone tries to say that philsoophy has had an impact on science, you freak out as if someone is claiming you have to insert a philosophical step into your laboratory experiment.

Read my two questions earlier. Do you agree with Point 1?

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

No Tom, I actually DID understand the purpose of such examples. However, we don't need to go to such ridiculous extent to illustrate such thing. There's one going on right now! I picked the high-Tc example because of such "multiple scenario explanation" for the body of empirical evidence. There are at least two different camps fighting it out this very minute on the mechanism of high-Tc : the phonon picture, and the magnetic/spin fluctuation picture. Both side are claiming that all the body of empirical evidence support the scenario they "believe in".

Now, apply Occam's Razor there! If Aquamarine is correct, this is trivial! We apply it, and go home, and that's that. However, when there are two equally valid ideas on equal footing (which happens A LOT in physics), claiming that Occam's Razo solves everything is extremely naive and ignorant of what REALLY happens in physics more often than not! No one fits a 100th order polynomial when a 2nd order will do. I would give a month's salary to end up with this kinds of decisions to know which is correct. Throughout my professional career, I have NEVER been faced with this easy of a scenario in choosing which ones to use. Never! And I will challenge anyone else to point out where in physics currently is there a similar situation where simply by applying Occam's razor, we can pick the winner. Pick up this week's issue of Phys. Rev. Lett. and go at it.

It is only when we TEST these seemingly two theories on equal footing on areas where they DIVERGE will we finally able to select which is the one that's valid. This isn't occam's razor, it's pure, down and dirty experimental evidence.

Zz.

There has not existed, until maybe recently, a good formal restatement of Ockham's razor. So scientists have used Ockham's intuitively, essentially sticking with a prior theory until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that another theory is less complex while still fitting the data. It has not been possible to compare goodness of fit to complexity. So in many cases it has been impossible to decide which theory is more correct given available evidence.

Now this may be about to change due information theory. So it may no be possible today answer which of the two competing theories of the mechanism of high-Tc is most correct, given available empirical evidence. But maybe in the near future.

If so, it is one of the greatest scientific revolutions of all time. It has the potential to answer most or maybe all questions asked in the philosophy of science. And also destroying those aspects of philosophy many here find objectionable, like postmodernism.

 

[hypnagogue]

Claiming that I said that Philosophy directs and controls the whole process is a strawman because I did not say that. That didn't stop you from attacking it, however.

To be fair, I think your business analogy with philosophy presumably as the CEO may have been misleading. I think I know what you were getting at, but I can see how others would interpret the analogy in a sense stronger than what you intended.

edit: oops, I see jcsd has already pointed that out. Apparently this thread sprouted yet another page while I wasn't looking.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Ohh you've done it now! Come the revolution philsophers will be swinging from the lamp posts! (after I've dealt with the Trots and the art critics).

What sent you over the edge, the threat of that Rainman quiz? I deleted an earlier post because I wanted to include a scenerio where I walk into Zapper's lab and tell him he has to stop all experimentation until he admits God is light, and therefore prior to all EM experiments he has to prostrate himself on the floor before his equipment. Then I decided he wouldn't think it was funny, and even might find out about the Crystal Reading cult I just joined.

 

[ZapperZ]

There has not existed, until maybe recently, a good formal restatement of Ockham's razor. So scientists have used Ockham's intuitively, essentially sticking with a prior theory until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that another theory is less complex while still fitting the data. It has not been possible to compare goodness of fit to complexity. So in many cases it has been impossible to decide which theory is more correct given available evidence.

Again, when you make statements such as this, you simply neglected to invoke any specific example to illustrate that what you are stating is what actually happened. In my view (and it is obvious that this view is shared by a few other physicists on here), this makes your statement carries NO WEIGHT.

Please note that when I claim something, I illustrate that with specific examples. When I say that there are now two competing theories with EQUAL WEIGHT in which you simply cannot apply Occam's Razor, I TELL you what they are! I don't just leave that statement hanging. I respect your intelligence enough to know there is no way you should buy what I have to sell without pointing out specific examples to prove that I'm not making this up!

Now, let's look at your claim that we "...have used Ockham's intuitively, essentially sticking with a prior theory until it becomes overwhelmingly clear that another theory is less complex while still fitting the data..." There are two issues that are wrong here:

1. We stick by things that have been shown to work, and work over a LARGE range of phenomena. If another theory comes along and purported to do the same, why would we abandone one that we KNOW already works? It isn't "Occam's Razor", it's verification. There have been many instances where a new theory comes in, and claim to show they "work", but is really untested in many areas that an old theory ALREADY have proven itself. I can't think of any instances where a new theory comes in with ALL the same set of phenomena already proven, and we reject it simply via Occam's razor. If you have one, I'd like to hear it.

2. It is wrong because of classical mechanics-quantum mechanics case. QM comes in, and let's face it, it is MORE complex, and MORE convoluted conceptually than classical mechanics. Yet, it eventually replaces clasical mechanics as the more fundamental principles. It is NOT due to Occam's razor, but due to experimental verification! Where CM and QM disagrees, QM ALWAYS wins via emprical evidence alone!

I have shown why your point of view is wrong.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

ZapperZ:
I agree with you that the "Ockham's razor" idea is all too easily, and inaccurately used to describe the practice of science.

However, I would like to say that, ON OCCASION, Ockham's razor is used, in particular when a NEW theory comes along and shows that an earlier theory had unnecessary/redundant assumptions present.

I'll take one example of this: The (kinematic) theory of atoms

The physics of the early 19th-century (exemplified by Fourier), introduced a quantity called "the caloric fluid" to explain how heat flowed from one object to another, and the "amount" of caloric fluid in an object was related to the temperature of that object.

They developed our familiar mathematics on this ground, however they were rather perplexed and dissatisfied with their working idea of a "caloric fluid":

1) They showed that they could not measure any difference in the WEIGHT of an object according to whether that object was hot or cold.
Hence, the grudgingly had to state that the "caloric fluid" was weightless.

2) They were never able to extract pure, caloric fluid, i.e, proving its existence.

The maths worked great, but they thought they had to assume a quantity they didn't like the face of.


Precisely for this reason, when the kinetic theory of atoms became developed in the middle 19th-century, and was able to explain heat flow&temperature WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY CALORIC FLUID, most physicists were overjoyed that they finally could kick out the caloric fluid from their set of working ideas.

In addition, of course, the new theory had VAST consequences on other areas of physics, that is:
The new theory had a much stronger predictive power than their earlier theories.
In particular, the new theory was finally able to account for the behaviour of (dilute) gases, something the earlier theories had had problems with.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ:
I agree with you that the "Ockham's razor" idea is all too easily, and inaccurately used to describe the practice of science.

However, I would like to say that, ON OCCASION, Ockham's razor is used, in particular when a NEW theory comes along and shows that an earlier theory had unnecessary/redundant assumptions present.

I'll take one example of this: The (kinematic) theory of atoms

The physics of the early 19th-century (exemplified by Fourier), introduced a quantity called "the caloric fluid" to explain how heat flowed from one object to another, and the "amount" of caloric fluid in an object was related to the temperature of that object.

The maths worked great, but they thought they had to assume a quantity they didn't like the face of.


Precisely for this reason, when the kinetic theory of atoms became developed in the middle 19th-century, and was able to explain heat flow&temperature WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY CALORIC FLUID, most physicists were overjoyed that they finally could kick out the caloric fluid from their set of working ideas.

In addition, of course, the new theory had VAST consequences on other areas of physics, that is:
The new theory had a much stronger predictive power than their earlier theories.
In particular, the new theory was finally able to account for the behaviour of (dilute) gases, something the earlier theories had had problems with.

There are two separate issues here (I seem to be saying that a lot lately). First is the issues of "on occassion", so-and-so works. Let's assume that this is correct. I certainly would not go to the extent of Aquamarine and proclaim this rule as the standard de facto of how theories are accepted. I have just proven ONE example where this doesn't work. Thus, such "universal proclamation" is simply false.

Secondly, having had to write a whole term paper on the "Caloric theory of heat" while I was in a history of science class while I was an undergraduate, I must say that based on what I understand, and based on what you wrote, the acceptance of the Kinetic Theory over the Caloric Theory is anything but based on Occam's Razor. The caloric theory had fundamental problems even when they were accepted... simply because no one had found a "caloric"! They were tolerated simply because there were no other working models back then. Even the Kinetic Theory had some resistance when it was introduced - it wasn't in its full form till Boltzmann made the ultimate statistical formulation of its final form. This proves to be a better working model. But notice it wasn't "simpler". The concept of "atoms" still had resistance, so the Kinetic Theory was NOT simpler theoretically (it is layered with statistics) and conceptually than the caloric theory. So it is inconceivable that it was accepted simply by applying Occam's Razor between the two.

But thanks for pointing it out. This can be ANOTHER example of how, when one tries to make a point, one ILLUSTRATES it with a specific example that is tangible and can be thoroughly discussed.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Thank you, ZapperZ:

As we both agree to (and which you know better of than myself) CONTEMPORARY physicists disliked the "caloric fluid"-idea, not the least because they never seemed to FIND it.

However, from a very formal point of view, I would say that an atomic theory IS somewhat simpler:
1) Everything became reduced to relationships between objects WITH mass; there was shown no need for an artificial object WITHOUT mass (i.e, the caloric fluid) as well.

This is what I had in mind when I meant the kinetic theory of atoms SIMPLIFIED the earlier theory, in that it was able to make do with fewer TYPES of "stuff".

I do not, of course deny that the actual mathematics had to be refined/complexified, in particular with statistics, but the crucial issue here, IMO, is that when we do this, we are able to make NEW and ACCURATE predictions in fields where the old theory either had no working model to develop predictions from, or where its predictions where KNOWN to be false.

That is, the new theory has a greater predictive power as well.


I won't insist upon the dominance of the use of Ocham's razor here; the CLINCHING issue remains, as you've said, the better performance of the new model:
perhaps the "simplicity" issue is more of an aesthetically appealing feature which spurs the scientist on to hammer out his model?

 

[Aquamarine]

Here is a short description of Minimum Message Length induction, a good candidate for a formal replacement of Ockham's razor.
http://hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au/mml

Examples of how it have already been used in real-world science:
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMML/Intro/

More on MML:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_message_length
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMML/

But there are competing theories to MML. Malcolm R Foster have some overviews on his homepage.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/default.htm

Some examples of how Ockham's razor have been important in physics in choosing between theories:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s118778.htm

But the claim that Ockham's razor is the scientific method is stronger than some anecdotes. As I showed in the Ptolemic example, any theory can be modified to fit all empirical data, at the cost of complexity. No arguments against this have been stated. And then the only way to choose between competing theories is Ockham's razor.

Regarding point 1, se above. And note that since falsification have already been proven false as an universal criteria, there is no competing theory with Ockham's razor for how science works. Regarding point 2, the modern versions of Ockham's razor may choose a more complex theory if it better fits the data.

 

[marlon]

So now you're having to resort to attacks on mistakes and typos? This is sad Marlon. There is no topic worth ruining your objectivity over to this extent. Just relax. People will disagree with you all your life. And some of them will be right.

Really ? Thanks for this new insight...

I assume you mean the people participating in the science forums? I would hope they are pointing to relevant text when the only other option is to write 600 pages of explanations.

No, they are not. They are actually helping people out with specific solutions to real science problems and questions. Ofcourse we could refer to whatever text that there is out there on the web, but then what is the use of this Forum?

Sometimes my cat wonders the same thing.

Why am i not surprised ?

Good one. How can I possibly counter such strong arguments. Maybe if I use "hahaha" a little more, that would help the strength of my arguments?

Thanks, besides you don't have to counter anything. What arguments ? Please be more specific. hmmm, i could have sworn i read that somewhere else...
Maybe you should be more silent instead of using hahaha more. Just a suggestions to you...i can be wrong ofcourse

Three concrete examples of what? Libraries full of explanations on how philosophy and science relates?

YES INDEED. Please don't tell me what i asked and use that as an answer. It makes you sound real credible and knowledgeable to all readers of this thread.
Besides, no need to bring in Zz., i am only asking this question to you and your immense library...

So please fill in : 1) 2) and 3)

Thanks in advance for the clear knowledge...

marlon

 

[ZapperZ]

Here is a short description of Minimum Message Length induction, a good candidate for a formal replacement of Ockham's razor.
http://hawthorn.csse.monash.edu.au/mml

Examples of how it have already been used in real-world science:
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMML/Intro/

More on MML:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_message_length
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMML/

But there are competing theories to MML. Malcolm R Foster have some overviews on his homepage.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/default.htm

Some examples of how Ockham's razor have been important in physics in choosing between theories:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s118778.htm

But the claim that Ockham's razor is the scientific method is stronger than some anecdotes. As I showed in the Ptolemic example, any theory can be modified to fit all empirical data, at the cost of complexity. No arguments against this have been stated. And then the only way to choose between competing theories is Ockham's razor.

Regarding point 1, se above. And note that since falsification have already been proven false as an universal criteria, there is no competing theory with Ockham's razor for how science works. Regarding point 2, the modern versions of Ockham's razor may choose a more complex theory if it better fits the data.

Other than the fact that at least ONE of your links is dead, NONE of what you have listed here applies to the selection of a THEORY. You have listed how DATA is analyzed! Now, unless you are claiming that physics is nothing more than simply a collection of data and unrelated set of disjointed information (a common misconception for anyone who has not studied physics), then what you have tried to present here is quite irrelevant.

I am still amaze that you make all these claims, and yet you cannot clearly, on your own, produce a distinct, clear example. The Ptolemic example isn't valid, because again are doing "data fitting", and comparing a carefully-formed idea based on the knowledge at that time, with a "made-up" idea. It is why, for example, Intelligent Design is NOT a science, while Evolution is! Intelligent design claims they can explain ALL of the very same observation that Evolution already can. But you will notice that ID is NOT considered to be a scientific theory to be considered on the same level as Evolution. ID is a MADE-UP theory that allows untested intrusions. You, on the other hand, would include it and use Occam's razor as the reason why it not accepted. This is false!

Again, how about finding something in physics within the past century? Explain to me clearly how Occam's razor was used there! I can't believe you cannot even find ONE, considering that you claim it is a universal "law", even when physicists did not realize they're using it. I tried giving you one, but it is obvious that while you insist that us physicists do our "homework" by reading up on all of these sites, you don't seem to think you need to even bother reading up on the what "high-Tc superconductors" and the issues surrounding it are.

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

Other than the fact that at least ONE of your links is dead, NONE of what you have listed here applies to the selection of a THEORY. You have listed how DATA is analyzed! Now, unless you are claiming that physics is nothing more than simply a collection of data and unrelated set of disjointed information (a common misconception for anyone who has not studied physics), then what you have tried to present here is quite irrelevant.

I am still amaze that you make all these claims, and yet you cannot clearly, on your own, produce a distinct, clear example. The Ptolemic example isn't valid, because again are doing "data fitting", and comparing a carefully-formed idea based on the knowledge at that time, with a "made-up" idea. It is why, for example, Intelligent Design is NOT a science, while Evolution is! Intelligent design claims they can explain ALL of the very same observation that Evolution already can. But you will notice that ID is NOT considered to be a scientific theory to be considered on the same level as Evolution. ID is a MADE-UP theory that allows untested intrusions. You, on the other hand, would include it and use Occam's razor as the reason why it not accepted. This is false!

Again, how about finding something in physics within the past century? Explain to me clearly how Occam's razor was used there! I can't believe you cannot even find ONE, considering that you claim it is a universal "law", even when physicists did not realize they're using it. I tried giving you one, but it is obvious that while you insist that us physicists do our "homework" by reading up on all of these sites, you don't seem to think you need to even bother reading up on the what "high-Tc superconductors" and the issues surrounding it are.

Zz.

The links worked fine when I checked them again. And I suggest you read them, they are about how to select the best theory. One with examples of Ockham's razor this century, written by physicist. Foster have many example from physics this century in his articles. The Ptolemic example is correct, as others here have agreed. Regarding ID it fits the empirical evidence less well than a theory based on evolution, little need to invoke complexity.

 

[ZapperZ]

The links worked fine when I checked them again. And I suggest you read them, they are about how to select the best theory. One with examples of Ockham's razor this century, written by physicist. Foster have many example from physics this century in his articles. The Ptolemic example is correct, as others here have agreed. Regarding ID it fits the empirical evidence less well than a theory based on evolution, little need to invoke complexity.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between "selecting the appropriate model for set of data" and "selecting a theory to be correct". I asked you if you think physics is nothing more than just a collection of data. You never answered. If you think it is, then it would be consistent to your persistent of "curve fitting" analogy. But it would also clearly reveal your faulty knowledge of what physics is. Maybe this is why you refused to answer.

Secondly, Foster is EXACTLY describing what I just mentioned, especially in quantitative analysis of data! (Note: I graduated from UW-Madison also where Foster is a faculty member). Not only that, *I* have done the very same thing in my analysis of my experimental data. This means that I just don't pay lip service about these things, I have DONE it. However, these things are done simply to create a phenomenological model that can be checked, tested, and eventually evolved into a theory that is derived from First Principles. It is NEVER done to SELECT which theory is "correct"! This is what I've been trying to get across!

Look, if I were to give you tons and tons of links to read about high-Tc superconductors (and trust me, I am able to do that), I bet you'll roll your eyes and let a few things fly over your head. I'm not asking for links. I am asking you to PICK ONE physics example (I don't care where you hijack that example from) and tell me clearly how Occam's Razor was applied in picking out which theory is correct. Pick one from within this past century, if you please, since you obviously do not care for the example I picked already.

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between "selecting the appropriate model for set of data" and "selecting a theory to be correct". I asked you if you think physics is nothing more than just a collection of data. You never answered. If you think it is, then it would be consistent to your persistent of "curve fitting" analogy. But it would also clearly reveal your faulty knowledge of what physics is. Maybe this is why you refused to answer.

Secondly, Foster is EXACTLY describing what I just mentioned, especially in quantitative analysis of data! (Note: I graduated from UW-Madison also where Foster is a faculty member). Not only that, *I* have done the very same thing in my analysis of my experimental data. This means that I just don't pay lip service about these things, I have DONE it. However, these things are done simply to create a phenomenological model that can be checked, tested, and eventually evolved into a theory that is derived from First Principles. It is NEVER done to SELECT which theory is "correct"! This is what I've been trying to get across!

Look, if I were to give you tons and tons of links to read about high-Tc superconductors (and trust me, I am able to do that), I bet you'll roll your eyes and let a few things fly over your head. I'm not asking for links. I am asking you to PICK ONE physics example (I don't care where you hijack that example from) and tell me clearly how Occam's Razor was applied in picking out which theory is correct. Pick one from within this past century, if you please, since you obviously do not care for the example I picked already.

Zz.

Of course science is more than a collection of facts.

Please give an exact quote from Foster that support your statement.

Regarding examples, exactly the same arguements that were used in the Ptolemaic example can be used in any scientific controvery this century. Take the probably most famous of them, Einstein against Newton.

Or from one of the lnks that you have not read:

Ockham’s Razor is also the motivation behind unification of physical theory. A good example of this came nearly 100 years ago. The German physicist Max Planck had invented an early version of the quantum theory that explained a baffling phenomenon: the speed of electrons that were thrown off when light is shone at a metal. His equations called for a new physical constant, a new constant of nature, whose value had to be found from the observations he made. But the same idea was then applied to explain the amount of radiation given off by a hot body, an electric fire, for example, and also to explain the wavelengths of light that are absorbed by hydrogen atoms. But of these further phenomena had been experimentally studied and each had required its own physical constant of nature to be set separately from the observations. The new idea related these two extra constants to Planck’s and accurately gave their values. Three supposedly separate phenomena had been shown to have the same underlying explanation. The quantum idea was rapidly accepted in consequence.

My last example is from cosmology. When Einstein worked out his general theory of relativity and gravity early in the 20th century, and improved on Newton’s venerable theory, there was room for an arbitrary constant, known as a parameter, in his equations. To keep things simple he was tempted to put it to zero, but another consideration weighed even more heavily: he believed on philosophical grounds that the universe was unchanging on the large scale. He believed it was unchanging in how the great clusters of stars, called galaxies, relate to each other. This meant that his number could not be zero, for technical reasons.

But some years later, it was found that the galaxies were in fact all rushing away from one another. In Einstein’s mind, an informal version of the Ockham analysis immediately took place and he reverted to the value zero for his number, which is called the ‘cosmological constant’ today. In this spirit, a translation of the Latin Ockham’s Razor, ‘entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’ would be ‘Parameters should not proliferate unnecessarily’. This particular plot has thickened though: the value of Einstein’s cosmological constant is once again in question. Is it zero, or is it very small, and should be chosen so as to best fit the data?

We don’t know yet. This is why these questions are exciting.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s118778.htm

 

[ZapperZ]

Of course science is more than a collection of facts.

Please give an exact quote from Foster that support your statement.

Regarding examples, exactly the same arguements that were used in the Ptolemaic example can be used in any scientific controvery this century. Take the probably most famous of them, Einstein against Newton.

Or from one of the lnks that you have not read:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s118778.htm

I'm sorry, but this illustrates clearly why you do not understand the difference between applying Occam's Razor to a collection of data, and applying it to know what theory is correct. Forster's article on how one analyze the quantitative data is identical to this. This is what I stated as the phenomenological model.

Furthermore, do you really, seriously think that the reason General Relativity is considered to be more accurate than Newton's Gravitational theory simply due to Occam's Razor? Here's a hint: there are SEVERAL empirical data that show that Newton's Gravitational theory is less accurate than General Relativity. In other words, as I have replied to Tom earlier, it is pure down-and-dirty experimental verification that determined in the end which theory is more accurate over the other, and NOT Occam's Razor.

So now find me another one...

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

I'm sorry, but this illustrates clearly why you do not understand the difference between applying Occam's Razor to a collection of data, and applying it to know what theory is correct. Forster's article on how one analyze the quantitative data is identical to this. This is what I stated as the phenomenological model.

Furthermore, do you really, seriously think that the reason General Relativity is considered to be more accurate than Newton's Gravitational theory simply due to Occam's Razor? Here's a hint: there are SEVERAL empirical data that show that Newton's Gravitational theory is less accurate than General Relativity. In other words, as I have replied to Tom earlier, it is pure down-and-dirty experimental verification that determined in the end which theory is more accurate over the other, and NOT Occam's Razor.

So now find me another one...

Zz.

Regarding the empirical evidence in support of GR, this can be explained by fraud, mass psychosis, hallucinations, optical illusions, intervention by higher powers or madness. By adding all or some of this to Newton's theory, it can again fit all of the empirical evidence. But at the cost of complexity. Thus again, Ockham's razor is needed.

You have avoided answering the examples by Anthony Garret in my previous post. And failed to produce a quote by Foster. And ignore that MML is being used already to choose between theories. And failed to produce an alternative theory of how science works.

 

[ZapperZ]

Regarding the empirical evidence in support of GR, this can be explained by fraud, mass psychosis, hallucinations, optical illusions, intervention by higher powers or madness. By adding all or some of this to Newton's theory, it can again fit all of the empirical evidence. But at the cost of complexity. Thus again, Ockham's razor is needed.

This is EXACTLY what I meant by you not knowing when an idea is legitimate to be considered as a viable theory. You think that GR is on the same par as "fraud" and mass psychosis. I have proven in one of my articles that the general public is oblivious to the difference between "scientific evidence" and "anecdotal evidence". They think anything one can think of, or anything one "sees" is sufficient to be considered on par with what is dealt with in science. This is bogus! The fact that you think we need Occam's Razor to be able to pick out GR from "fraud", "mass psychosis", "hallluciantions", etc is incredible! I am in shock that this is the level of logic that I am dealing with, not to mention the level of ignorance of the workings of science.

You have avoided answering the examples by Anthony Garret in my previous post. And failed to produce a quote by Foster. And ignore that MML is being used already to choose between theories. And failed to produce an alternative theory of how science works.

Exactly! Because I am doing exactly what you are doing. And I don't need to produce an "alternative" of how science works. I am not the one who is silly enough to state that there IS a philosophy, or a "theory" on how science works. YOU DID. I never claim to be in possession of any such theory. All I'm doing is disproving what you want to claim: that simply by using Occam's Razor, one can PICK which theory is correct. You have failed to do this when I brought up the high-Tc case, and you have failed to do this when you brought up GR vs. Newtonian Gravity, needing to resort to comparing GR with... er.. "fraud" and "mass psychosis"? Come on now!

Given two or more LEGITIMATE theories to explain the same phenomenon and NOT just to come up with a phenomenological model to fit some data, use Occam's razor and prove to me you can pick which one is correct. You want an example? Apply this Occam's Razor to tell me which one is correct: Newton's formulation of classical mechanics versus Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formulation of clasical mechanics. BOTH formulation can describe ALL of the classical dynamics! Both of them agree with each other. Both are LEGITIMATE theories with clear underlying mathematical description, unlike your hallucinations and mass psychosis. Yet, they both have distinctly DIFFERENT approaches, and some would say, different "philosphy" to how each view the classical universe. Now apply your beloeved Occam's razor and tell me which one is correct.

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

You have no theory of how science works, using only gut instinct. Somehow, this tells you that some theories are automatically legitimate while others are not. That fraud or mass psychosis could be an explanation is automatically dismissed on no grounds. (at least concerning certain fields, which decided again by gut feeling. I guess you would be more open to this if ID researchers claimed to have proven their theory conclusively).

Also you seem somewhat fixated by high-Tc theories, probably because you know that the highly specialized area makes it impossible to discuss the details by those not experts. But note also that exactly the same arguments used on Einstein/Newton could be used here. If I wanted, I could make a lots of claims about highly specialized areas of medicine that you know nothing about, claiming that you know nothing about science. Instead, since this a general discussion about the philosophy of science, choose areas more commonly known.

I will again repeat this quote, the author is physicist:

Ockham’s Razor is also the motivation behind unification of physical theory. A good example of this came nearly 100 years ago. The German physicist Max Planck had invented an early version of the quantum theory that explained a baffling phenomenon: the speed of electrons that were thrown off when light is shone at a metal. His equations called for a new physical constant, a new constant of nature, whose value had to be found from the observations he made. But the same idea was then applied to explain the amount of radiation given off by a hot body, an electric fire, for example, and also to explain the wavelengths of light that are absorbed by hydrogen atoms. But of these further phenomena had been experimentally studied and each had required its own physical constant of nature to be set separately from the observations. The new idea related these two extra constants to Planck’s and accurately gave their values. Three supposedly separate phenomena had been shown to have the same underlying explanation. The quantum idea was rapidly accepted in consequence.

My last example is from cosmology. When Einstein worked out his general theory of relativity and gravity early in the 20th century, and improved on Newton’s venerable theory, there was room for an arbitrary constant, known as a parameter, in his equations. To keep things simple he was tempted to put it to zero, but another consideration weighed even more heavily: he believed on philosophical grounds that the universe was unchanging on the large scale. He believed it was unchanging in how the great clusters of stars, called galaxies, relate to each other. This meant that his number could not be zero, for technical reasons.

But some years later, it was found that the galaxies were in fact all rushing away from one another. In Einstein’s mind, an informal version of the Ockham analysis immediately took place and he reverted to the value zero for his number, which is called the ‘cosmological constant’ today. In this spirit, a translation of the Latin Ockham’s Razor, ‘entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’ would be ‘Parameters should not proliferate unnecessarily’. This particular plot has thickened though: the value of Einstein’s cosmological constant is once again in question. Is it zero, or is it very small, and should be chosen so as to best fit the data?

We don’t know yet. This is why these questions are exciting.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/oc...ies/s118778.htm

Regarding Newton's or Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, is my understanding that the later is simpler in some aspects, which would speak in its favor if one where forced to choose. But I am not claiming that today there is an exact formulation of Ockham's razor that can decide this. My claim in only that scientists intuitively today choose when it is overwhelmingly clear which choice is simpler while still fitting the data.

I have attempted to answer all questions, while you repeatedly avoids answering mine. I repeat: You have avoided answering the examples by Anthony Garret in my previous post. And failed to produce a quote by Foster. And ignore that MML is being used already to choose between theories. And failed to produce an alternative theory of how science works.

 

[ZapperZ]

You have no theory of how science works, using only gut instinct. Somehow, this tells you that some theories are automatically legitimate while others are not. That fraud or mass psychosis could be an explanation is automatically dismissed on no grounds. (at least concerning certain fields, which decided again by gut feeling. I guess you would be more open to this if ID researchers claimed to have proven their theory conclusively).

Let's get these VERY clear:

1. YOU were the one who claimed that there is this "universal theory" of how science works. Now, is this correct, or not?

2. *I* never make any such claim, that there is this "universal theory" oh how science works. Now, is this correct, or not?

Somehow, just because I question the validity of what you are claiming, it automatically implies that *I* have a theory that I want to push? What kind of twisted logic did you apply to get to this conclusion? So please STOP asking me for an "alternative". I didn't propose ONE (Note: there's a HINT there).

Also you seem somewhat fixated by high-Tc theories, probably because you know that the highly specialized area makes it impossible to discuss the details by those not experts. But note also that exactly the same arguments used on Einstein/Newton could be used here. If I wanted, I could make a lots of claims about highly specialized areas of medicine that you know nothing about, claiming that you know nothing about science. Instead, since this a general discussion about the philosophy of science, choose areas more commonly known.

Again, you proclaim that ALL of science follows such "rule". Now, correct me if I'm wrong. If I make a claim that the speed of light is a constant in vacuum all the time and in all cases, then anyone, from a ditch digger, to a "mechanic", to a surgeon, to anyone, can point out to me where, in their profession, this claim is violated. The speed of light is not a constant only for physicists! Now examined what YOU did. You claim that in ALL of science, the ONLY way to pick the correct theory is by just applying Occam's razor.

Now step back, and look at your claim from MY perspective. I look at what I do, and what I practice, and would you ever need to wonder why I would ask what I did? Let's get REAL here for a second. I see no such "rule" being applied, so I ASKED you to show how your "rule" is being applied, or have been applied, or WILL be applied to this case. It is current, still evolving, and still hot and important, with all the main characters still ALIVE! I would think you would jump at this opportunity to show that, yes, I can prove that my "rule" can make an accurate prediction of what's going to happen even BEFORE it happens (after all, we do that in physics all the time!). What could be MORE convincing than that?!

I NEVER denied the usefulness of Occam's razor, even when many physicists don't even know there's a name to what they practice. However, I claim that it is only useful in knowing how to do phenomenology. I claim and have shown examples where it is NOT used in selecting which theory is correct, and which isn't. This isn't a proposal of a theory. It is a contradiction via examples to what you want me to believe. The examples you have cited ALL contains the "rule" on how to look at a set of data, and extract the relevant information. NOWHERE, even in the one you cited here, was there a direct application of Occam's razor to select a correct theory. If you look VERY carefullly, there is ALWAYS an experimental observation that became the linchpin that distinguish two different theories. Somehow, this fact is completely overlooked!

Regarding Newton's or Lagrangian/Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, is my understanding that the later is simpler in some aspects, which would speak in its favor if one where forced to choose. But I am not claiming that today there is an exact formulation of Ockham's razor that can decide this. My claim in only that scientists intuitively today choose when it is overwhelmingly clear which choice is simpler while still fitting the data.

There we go again, fitting the data. It is clear to me that you do not know the difference between phenomenology and theory. I cannot answer the rest of your questions to me if you are not able to comprehend the difference between those two.

Zz.

 

[Chronos]

Quite a spirited exchange. But, passion does not embody the principles of empiricism, rationalism or skepticism [the three pillars of the scientific method]. Interestingly enough, the body of literature on the scientific method does not mention Ockhamism as essential to the scientific method. At least not by sources from people engaged in the actual practice of science. If you accept the premise that people who actually practice science have more expertise in the matter than those who philosophize about how it should be practiced, the choice is pretty clear. Attempting to apply Ockhamism to chose between competing theories is clearly not an empirical approach. Without empiricism there is no science, just opinions. This is not to say philosophy plays no role in science. Philosophers, by definition, are commited to rationalism — which means they must scrupulously avoid all forms of unproven beliefs, illogic, and especially self-contradiction. In other words, whatever is to be believed, must be believed for specific, fundamentally sound reasons. I fail to see how Ockhamism qualifies as a specific, fundamentally sound reason to believe or disbelieve anything. It is merely a lantern.

 

[Les Sleeth]

. Philosophers, by definition, are commited to rationalism — which means they must scrupulously avoid all forms of unproven beliefs, illogic, and especially self-contradiction. In other words, whatever is to be believed, must be believed for specific, fundamentally sound reasons.

A philosopher is not required to subscribe to rationalism, at least if you mean one must in general prioritize it above being empirical. If you mean a philosopher by definition focuses on the rationality of ideas being proposed, then I suppose you are right. I myself believe a person is in general on the firmest ground when prioritizing experience first, reason second. You know, observe to find out what is true over using logic to say what is true.

 

[Chronos]

rationalism

A philosopher is not required to subscribe to rationalism, at least if you mean one must in general prioritize it above being empirical. If you mean a philosopher by definition focuses on the rationality of ideas being proposed, then I suppose you are right. I myself believe a person is in general on the firmest ground when prioritizing experience first, reason second. You know, observe to find out what is true over using logic to say what is true.

I agree, Les. Despite all the formalisms and disputes concerning what leads to discovery, empiricism is the foundation of anything remotely related to science or philosophy. I only intended to object to Ockham's razor as necessary or relevant to the scientific method. While both sound and logical, it is inadequate. Philosophy without science is opinion, and science without philosophy is merely fact without meaning. In that sense, I would say philosophy is the lantern of science.

 

[Aquamarine]

It seems that this discussion about the foundations of science stirs quite agitated feelings. In a way this is a strange since Ockham's razor as the scientific method is all that stand in the way of the postmodernistic explanations.

Let's take another approach. Ockham's razor is simple the statement that when curve-fitting, one should find the solution that best fits the data while avoiding overftting. Understand that a cuve is a theory, it is more than the data. Now, a objection is that this general goal is very vague and is not a description of how science is practiced today. This is true. The scientific method today follows one particular solution to this problem, namely cross-validation.

Cross-validation is essentially that the data should be divided into subsets and that the value of a theory is how well it predicts the data on "virginal" subsets. That is, subsets not used in making the theory.

Now this is a very powerful and robust solution of how to apply Ockham's razor. But it is in no way the only solution. And it has some great disadvantages.

One is the requirement for "virginal" data. Let's assume that an alien civilization sends a long message to Earth. The cryptographers solve this message, using all the data available. But according the cross-validation, "virginal" data never seen by the cryptographers is required to decide if this is the correct solution. So if one demands that only cross-validation should be used in science, then even if a solution if found that gives perfect meaning to a very long message, this is pseudoscience.

One other problem with cross-validation is the assumption that the subset will contain all the information of the whole set. But it may well be that the only way to find a solution is by looking at all the data available. Saving some data for "virginal" testing may make it impossible to find a solution.

Furthermore, even if cross-validation can find a solution, it is in not certain that it is more efficient at doing this compared to alternatives like MML, MMD, AIT or AIC.

So in the end, the critiques have mistaken one good solution of how to apply Ockham's razor with the whole scientific method. There may well be many different ways to apply Ockham's razor, with different ways having different efficiency depending on the particular situation.

 

[ZapperZ]

It seems that this discussion about the foundations of science stirs quite agitated feelings. In a way this is a strange since Ockham's razor as the scientific method is all that stand in the way of the postmodernistic explanations.

Let's take another approach. Ockham's razor is simple the statement that when curve-fitting, one should find the solution that best fits the data while avoiding overftting. Understand that a cuve is a theory, it is more than the data. Now, a objection is that this general goal is very vague and is not a description of how science is practiced today. This is true. The scientific method today follows one particular solution to this problem, namely cross-validation.

But this is where you KEEP missing the point. Curve fitting is NOT a theory! What you fit, isn't a theory! I fit the tunneling density of states of a superconductor as part of my graduate work. The "curve fit" is NOT A THEORY. It is a phenomenological model designed to extract useful information when there isn't an acceptable theory already in place! It is why I keep repeating that you do not understand the difference between phenomenolgy and theory.

You seem to somehow have a very jaundice view of what scientists face everyday. You think that we are often faced with a situation where we have to choose between "Newton's gravitational Law" and "fraud" or "mass psychosis". I WISH we have that kind of a choice - it would make my job a whole lot easier. The REALITY is that we don't! I can't remember reading about, or being faced with, that TYPE of choices! So your examples or analogies are completely divorced from any reality of what is being practiced in science! What we are often faced with is the very type of example I gave in choosing between spin fluctuation or phonons in high-Tc superconductors, or between Newtonian versus Hamiltonian. These ARE the types of choices we have to deal with, so deal with it! It is meaningless to come up with ridiculous scenario the very same way it is ridiculous to fit a 96 order polynomial and a 2nd order will do!

What it boils down to is the complete lack of understanding of the practice of physics. Therefore, you end up making unrealistic scenario that none of us typically are faced with. The fact that in all the examples you gave, the deciding factor is a series of empirical evidence where two competing theories deviate, and NOT an application of Occam's razor, somehow gets overlooked. There is a difference in claiming that Occam's razor is used, and claiming that occam's razor is the "universal rule" that one uses in picking out which theory is correct. I assert that the latter is false. I have shown two separate REAL (and not ridiculously made up) instances where you have failed to apply Occam's razor and pick the "correct" theory. I can bring up even MORE examples.

But I won't. There is no point in explaining this, when you are still stuck with the idea that "fitting a curve" is all that we do and that this curve fit IS a theory. It explains why there are quacks in the Physics section who have the outrageous gall to claim that QM is nothing more than "curve fitting". One tends to make such claims when one is ignorant of what it is.

Zz.

 

[Aquamarine]

I recommend that you read Foster's "Philosophy of the Quantitative Sciences: Curve Fitting and Cross Validation".
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/

It is a great introduction to the philosophy of science. Read especially part two, about curve-fitting. And it should contain enough examples from physics to satisfy all. Although I don't accept his conclussions about cross-validation, due to problems stated above.

You have not given two examples where Ockham's razor have failed. Since most scientists think that the principles of cross-validation is the scientific method, and they are using it to evaluate theories, and cross-validation is in fact a valid application of Ockham's razor, then those scientists are using Ockham's razor. Including yourself.

 

[ZapperZ]

You have not given two examples where Ockham's razor have failed. Since most scientists think that the principles of cross-validation is the scientific method, and they are using it to evaluate theories, and cross-validation is in fact a valid application of Ockham's razor, then those scientists are using Ockham's razor. Including yourself.

Read these carefully:

1. I have NEVER stated that this principle isn't used, even unconsciously.

2. I have shown that "curve fitting" is NOT the same as "theory".

3. I have shown where YOU can't use OR principle in picking out which of the two mechanism is valid for High-Tc superconductor. This proves that there has to be MORE than just applying one simple principle.

4. Your selection of which of the two to pick - Newtonian laws versus Lagrangian/Hamiltonian - shows clearly that there are no such thing as a clear-cut scenario where you can simply apply a simplistic principle and choose which theory is correct.

5. I am not out here to prove that OR is wrong! <shock!> I have never made such claim even if you are forcing me to. What I objected to was your insistence that, given a number of competing theories on EQUAL FOOTING (and not some ridiculously made up theories for comparison), you can simply use OR to pick out which theory is correct. YOU have proven this to be false yourself by your inability to apply this principle in picking out the "correct" theory of superconductivity.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

earlier you compared a philospher to a CEO and a physicist to a production line worker, how were we meant to take this analogy then?

I see what you mean now. I didn't mean that a philospher directs and controls the way a CEO does a company. I was merely drawing an analogy about the relationship between a CEO and a line worker. A CEO has no direct involvement in the line process, yet he/she does impact the operation on some level. I was just trying to get some people out of the linear thinking that can't seem to understand how anyone not working on the line could have an impact on the line.

 

[Fliption]

To be fair, I think your business analogy with philosophy presumably as the CEO may have been misleading. I think I know what you were getting at, but I can see how others would interpret the analogy in a sense stronger than what you intended.

edit: oops, I see jcsd has already pointed that out. Apparently this thread sprouted yet another page while I wasn't looking.

Yes, I caught it. I forgot that most people participating here don't seem to be very competent at interpreting analogies.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree, Les. Despite all the formalisms and disputes concerning what leads to discovery, empiricism is the foundation of anything remotely related to science or philosophy. I only intended to object to Ockham's razor as necessary or relevant to the scientific method. While both sound and logical, it is inadequate. Philosophy without science is opinion, and science without philosophy is merely fact without meaning. In that sense, I would say philosophy is the lantern of science.

Nicely put Chronos.

 

[Les Sleeth]

All Real Scientists Unite . . . with Philosophers!

After careful consideration, the utterly objective judges have unanimously determined that the philosophy side of this debate has won. Congratulations to the Socratic wanna-bees team! The deciding factor? Well, what tipped the scales in favor of the wisdom fellows (otherwise known as wise asses) was that the leader of the science team spent a better part of the weekend participating in a debate concerning the epistemological value of Occam's Razor. Due to his deeply passionate involvement in a philosophical debate, and quite a lively one at that, the judges had no choice but to conclude he’s finally seen the light (which the philosophy side saw along), and realizes that philosophy and science are kindred spirits, like peas in a pod, forever and ever linked in the pursuit of Truth. Let’s raise our glasses to a more collaborative future!

 

[metacristi]

Regarding falsification, here are many concrete examples that it is not how science works:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html

Hm...Not a good link.The mere popperian falsificationism has problems but is still the best approach we have at disposal,it only needs some 'improvments'.I think Lakatos' has already done this with enough success,though of course there is,still,no methodology without problems.

The main problems of popperianism is the situation of nonobservables and of non testable in isolation physical laws.It has more or less the same problems that 'plague' Ayer's 'weak' principle of verification though under falsificationism the problems of meaning and 'reliable verification' are dropped.Basically the same logical arguments can be used against falsificationism too.

For example,a 'classical' one,under the mere popperian account Newton's first law (the law of inertia) is metaphysical for it is not testable in isolation and therefore should not be part of science!Thus we need 'improvments' (I've proposed some) without becoming extremists and claiming that strong realism is justified by the 'no miracle' argument (unfortunately not sound,not yet at least).

Returning at the main point well,Martin Gardner put the problem as if the inductivist approach (it is however the oldest methodology since Bacon at least),in 'new clothes' this time,has proved to be superior to falsificationism.This is not true,I do not think that inductionists are in a better position now than in the time of Hume and Kant (for they induction is apriori and does not need justification).Or the so called Cambridge school (Russell,Keynes before turning to economy and so on) and Vienna Circle (logical positivists such as Neurath,Carnap,Reichenbach).Or Ayer.Indeed there is no sound argument in favor of a general inductionist method,probabilistic approaches included.

At most we can combine falsificationism with inductionism in some cases where a bayesian approach seems to support induction.This means that in some cases,when we have a wide range of corroborations (and no exceptions) the bayesian approach does enable scientists to believe that a certain law or theory is approximatively true instead of merely preferring it to all other existing,alternative,proposals as in the usual falsificationist approach.

For example if we could prove somehow that there is possible only a single main approach,all other proposals being only variations of the main approach (coming from powerful and unifying principles).Unfortunately this happens very very seldom in practice and almost never in physics,which is 'plagued' by the underdetermination of theories.

[Anyway] accepting the bayesian approach (this is a correct stance in some cases),at least punctually,in no ways imply certitudes,the bayesian approach is subjective in nature,so scientists are still fully open even to nontrivial changes in the future (at least that some attributes assigned to scientific constructs dissappear altoghether and are replaced by other).So falsificationism is retained even in such cases.There are no certitudes in science (not to mention the problems with ontological and epistemological idealism).

 

[ZapperZ]

For example,a 'classical' one,under the mere popperian account Newton's first law (the law of inertia) is metaphysical for it is not testable in isolation and therefore should not be part of science!Thus we need 'improvments' (I've proposed some) without becoming extremists and claiming that strong realism is justified by the 'no miracle' argument (unfortunately not sound,not yet at least).

Well, FINALLY you decided to use a concrete example, and an odd one too. If you think that Newton's First Law is... er... "metaphysical" and "... should not be part of science", do you feel the same way for Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws also?

Zz.

 

[metacristi]

Well, FINALLY you decided to use a concrete example, and an odd one too. If you think that Newton's First Law is... er... "metaphysical" and "... should not be part of science", do you feel the same way for Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws also?

Zz.

Indeed ignorance is bliss...Honestly the feeling is that I speak with the winds.Anyway those who [are] prepared to understand will understand (puting also the hand on a book on philosophy of science,it is not my goal to teach here).The rest should maturize by themselves.