The Role of Philosophy in Science: Separating Fact from Fiction

[Fliption]

Again, the reason why I picked this example is because we can DOUBLE-CHECK if so-and-so figure really meant it the way we are interpreting his or her quote! I can't double check with Einstein to see if his quote was taken out of context, the very same way his "Imagination is more important than knowledge" quote has been bastardized so often. Einstein is known to go by his "gut feeling" on a lot of things... he was right a lot of times (Special Relativity, General Relativity, Bose's theory, etc.) and he was also wrong a lot of times (cosmological constant, EPR paradox, etc.). So to make him a diety he isn't is simply naive.

Zz.

In those instances where he guessed right, is this not your example of where philsophy impacted science? Or have you conveniently "bastardized" philosophy by labeling it a "guess"?

Also, for context, here is where the quote came from. You'll see this whole paper is about Einsteins emphasis on philosophy in science.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/#1

 

[ZapperZ]

Does anybody ever get the feeling that you're involved in a huge debate and that everyone actually agrees? I thought most everyone had already acknowledeged that philosophy has no role in the day to day workings of a speciifc scientific endeaver. If anyone is arguing against this then they are doing a poor job. The responses I've seen from Metacrista and Aquamarine don't seem to be claiming this either. They are simply arguing that philosophy of science has a role to play in general. Not in a specific experiment. (Maybe I've misunderstood them.) It's easy to see why they would be so militant with this defensive view of philosophy in general given the title of this thread is not just a claim that philosphy has no role in high-Tc superconductors. It's claiming philosophy is pseudo-science. Perhaps Zapper and Marlon don't agree on this point?

Fine, then we can stop this.

1. Philosophy has no role in the day to day working of a specific scientific endeaver

2. Philosophy of science has a role to play in general(?).

Who agrees with Point 1? I do.

Who agrees with Point 2? I don't know, since I have no idea what "in general" means... and I'm too scared to ask for an example of what it means since I might get dumped on a long dessertation on Popperian's falsificationism.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

Who agrees with Point 2? I don't know, since I have no idea what "in general" means... and I'm too scared to ask for an example of what it means since I might get dumped on a long dessertation on Popperian's falsificationism.

It simply means there isn't the direct relationship with specific experiments. Like a prof of physics that does nothing but teach. He isn't involved in any actual research but definitely has an effect on science in general.

Putting all the opinions of Einstein aside, considering that the very creation of the scientific method is a philosophical act, then I find it hard to disagree with number 2.

 

[ZapperZ]

In those instances where he guessed right, is this not your example of where philsophy impacted science? Or have you conveniently "bastardized" philosophy by labeling it a "guess"?

No I haven't, unless you are calling his "intuition" as his "philosophy", which would be strange since last time I checked, the ability to understand the problem with Maxwell equation not being covariant under galilean transformation is physics and not philosophy.

Zz.

 

[Fliption]

No I haven't, unless you are calling his "intuition" as his "philosophy", which would be strange since last time I checked, the ability to understand the problem with Maxwell equation not being covariant under galilean transformation is physics and not philosophy.

Zz.

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

 

[quantumdude]

An example of philosophy impacting science: Relativity

There are two broad classes of conflicting ideas on the metaphysics of space and time: The absolutist theory and the relational theory.

One is that space exists independently of the things in it, and that space is a sort of container for physical objects. Time also exists independently of (moving) physical objects, according to this view. Take away all matter, and the container remains and the instants of time continue to flow. This is the absolutist theory of space and time, and it was the one held by Newton. Not coincidentally, the spacetime of Newtonian mechanics was of this type.

Another view is that space and time have no existence independent of moving matter, and that they are merely relationships between objects in various states of motion. An analogy might help clarify this. Take two brothers, the only children of their parents. A relationship exists between them called "brotherhood". But if one of brothers is killed, the other brother remains but the relationship of "brotherhood" no longer exists. Similarly, take away all matter from the universe, and the spatiotemporal relationships between the (now nonexistant) objects cease to exist. This is aptly named the relational theory of space and time, and it was held by Leibniz, and later by Mach, and then by Einstein. Now it is the case that it is possible to hold to both the absolutist theory of space/time and to special relativity, but general relativity puts the nail in its coffin. Space and time are relationships between physical objects.

Now you may argue that the relational view of space now belongs to science via GR, but the fact remains that it is doubtful that Newton or any of his followers could ever had arrived at GR with their deeply flawed spacetime metaphysics.

 

[Aquamarine]

"gut feeling" and "majority opinion"?? On high-Tc superconductors?! I'm sorry, but this is highly insulting. You picked a "generic" scenario and applied it to something which you yourself didn't hesitate to acknowledge you know nothing about. And we physicists get accused of yapping about things we don't know of when we "intruded" into philosophy?

And since when is the criteria of a theory or idea in physics being correct entirely based on "algorithmic information theory"? Can you point ONE single theory in physics, today, that is accepted to be correct that is just based on "algorithmic information theory"?

I know next to nothing about this field and theory and still have given many questions that you have not been able to answer. I do not doubt that these problems have been solved successfully, in this case, through intuition based on prior experiences without a deeper formal knowledge.

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.

So if algorithmic information theory is the correct formal restatement of Ockham's razor, and as is claimed precisely trades model complexity for goodness of fit, it is the foundation of all of science.

 

[jcsd]

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]

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!

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.

 

[marlon]

I figured you would misunderstand so I modified my words. Apparently not soon enough.

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

I'm saying that the answer you seek does not exists. The true answer to the question would require you taking some courses in philosophy.

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

You don't understand what you're asking if you actually expect someone to tell you in a thread on the internet the relationship between philosophy and science!

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

My god this could fill a library.

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

marlon

 

[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?