- #1
xaratustra
- 38
- 0
Was just thinking, is it ever possible that the same phenomenon can be fully explained by two theories that are not subset of each other?
Are There Ever Multiple Theories That Fully Explain the Same Phenomenon?
- Context: Undergrad
- Thread starter xaratustra
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the possibility of multiple theories fully explaining the same phenomenon, particularly in the context of scientific modeling and the implications of simplicity and assumptions in theory selection. It explores the nature of physical theories as mathematical models and their relationship to empirical data.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
Main Points Raised
- Some participants propose that it is possible for two theories to fully explain the same phenomenon, though this is considered unlikely due to principles like Occam's Razor favoring simpler theories.
- Others argue that while there may be many models that fit a given set of data, in well-established areas of physics, there tends to be a consensus on a single description that effectively explains observations.
- A participant highlights the distinction between "research-front" areas, where multiple competing theories may exist, and well-accepted concepts, where typically one theory prevails as knowledge evolves.
- One participant uses an analogy of guessing the contents of an opaque box to illustrate how theories may compete and refine over time based on new observations.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the likelihood of multiple theories fully explaining the same phenomenon, with some emphasizing the rarity of such occurrences in established science, while others maintain that it is theoretically possible.
Contextual Notes
The discussion reflects varying assumptions about the nature of scientific theories, the role of simplicity, and the dynamics of theory evolution in both established and emerging fields.
- #2
Drakkith
Mentor
- 23,202
- 7,685
Of course. It's just extremely unlikely that both theories are equally simple with the same amount of assumptions. One would almost inevitably fall under Occam's Razor.
- #3
xaratustra
- 38
- 0
Drakkith said:
true. Thanks. Now I have to think more...
- #4
cosmik debris
- 734
- 172
Physical theories are mathematical models and for any set of given data there are an infinite number of models that fit that data. As the other poster said, one usually chooses the simplest.
- #5
- 32,812
- 4,723
cosmik debris said:
But we need to make a distinction here between "research-front" areas versus well-known, well-accepted concepts. In the latter, overwhelmingly, there is only one description that works.
In research-front areas, we may have several competing theories trying to explain what is still unfolding. It's like you are trying to guess what's inside an opaque box. First you propose a bunch of things based simply on the observed size. Then when someone managed to pick it up, then the rough estimate of the weight will narrow down to the list of possible objects inside of it. Then someone shakes the box and listens to how it rattles, and you narrow it down some more... and so on. But eventually, practically everything settles on one, consistent description that fits and explains all the known observations.
Now it doesn't mean, later on, that description doesn't evolve as new observations and ideas come along, but the evolution of our knowledge very often leads to a single concept, not multiple, non-"subset" descriptions.
Zz.
Similar threads
- · Replies 50 ·
- · Replies 47 ·
- · Replies 0 ·
Undergrad
Is loop quantum gravity dual to CFT?
- · Replies 13 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
Undergrad
Integrity of matter / space and time
- · Replies 13 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 6 ·
- · Replies 26 ·