- #1
Scientific Method
- 31
- 0
What is the rationale behind the validity of Occam's Razor?
Thanks.
Thanks.
I don't believe that there is any formal rationale behind Occam's Razor. It's more of an opinion than anything.Scientific Method said:What is the rationale behind the validity of Occam's Razor?
Thanks.
Chronos said:While occasionally useful, these principles have no scientific validity. You may as well say a screwdriver is more valid than a pipe wrench because it has fewer moving parts.
Even the old versions of Occam's razor are used in science:Chronos said:Occam's razor probably creates as much confusion as it dispels. But then again, Occam never what he is usually attributed having said:
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." or "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary."
His actual words were:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "Plurality should not be posited without necessity."
This is good practical advise, as is "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" and "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.", which is another saying he did not say.
While occasionally useful, these principles have no scientific validity. You may as well say a screwdriver is more valid than a pipe wrench because it has fewer moving parts.
No. Obviously a person with good taste.Icebreaker said:My apologies for the threadjacking: Aquamarine, are you the same one from the ASC forums?
I think you are right that one assumption is that theories should be useful or efficient. And that Occam's razor is one rule for finding such theories.Scientific Method said:These explanations have been very helpful, thank you. So basically, why say (4/8) when it is simpler and just as valid to say (1/2). So, holding the view that efficiency is good, why choose an explanation that is a multiple of a simpler yet equally valid explanation.
Not to throw cold water on this line of thinking, but in what sense is (4/8) 'simpler' than (1/2)? There are, of course, obvious answers, but if you dig deeper, aren't they just as 'theory-laden' as the explanations themselves? In what sense is something an 'equally valid explanation'? Is not one woman's 'efficiency' another man's 'conflation/confusion of assumptions'?Scientific Method said:These explanations have been very helpful, thank you. So basically, why say (4/8) when it is simpler and just as valid to say (1/2). So, holding the view that efficiency is good, why choose an explanation that is a multiple of a simpler yet equally valid explanation.
Indeed; so if all we have is numbers, information theory gives us a handle on how to make them as simple as possible? But what if the numbers are (1/1), (4/8), (27/81), ...? And how do we apply information theory to GR (as a theory)?Chronos said:Information theory. Fewer bits are required to code 1/2.
An interesting question. While a bit off topic, I can't resist tossing you a couple bones :Nereid said:... And how do we apply information theory to GR (as a theory)?
Occam's Razor is a principle that states that when there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest one is usually the correct one. It is important in science because it helps scientists make more accurate and efficient predictions and explanations.
Occam's Razor helps in the scientific method by guiding scientists to choose the most parsimonious explanation for a phenomenon. This allows for more efficient and accurate testing and experimentation.
No, Occam's Razor is not always applicable in science. There may be instances where a more complex explanation is necessary to fully understand a phenomenon. Additionally, Occam's Razor should not be used as the sole basis for accepting or rejecting a scientific theory.
Yes, Occam's Razor can also be applied in other fields besides science, such as philosophy and law. It is a general principle of parsimony that can be used to guide reasoning and decision-making in various disciplines.
Occam's Razor is not a proven law, but rather a guideline or heuristic that has been found to be useful in many scientific and philosophical contexts. It is not a definitive rule, but rather a tool that can aid in the process of understanding and explaining the world around us.