(March 19, 2021 at 10:05 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 19, 2021 at 9:32 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: It would be more accurate to say that in science we go for the simplest (without any elements not required) explanation that accounts for all the observations. Saying God did it is functionally equivalent to saying 'magic did it' and doesn't actually explain anything.

I don't know how true that is of science. Yes, ideally you want a particular model to be as economic as possible. But you never choose between models based on simplicity. (At least that hasn't been the case in the cognitive sciences; our theories seem to get more complex over time.) Theories are tools for scientists, so perhaps in that sense they might opt for the lightest hammer. But simplicity isn't a replacement for experimentation. And I'd be interested to see an example where simplicity actually did what you say it does.

Edit: And if I may add: Given that you have no access to reality, except by your theories, you have no contrast by which to measure simplicity. In other words, you are unjustifiably deciding that a given level of simplicity is correct. But the more complex theory could be the simplest, and the one you've chosen an oversimplification. Simplicity is an unjustified preference, that reflects the limits of our brains, rather than the nature of reality.

They get more complex only to account for all the necessary elements. Sometimes new elements are discovered and a theory has to become more complex to account for them. I know of no pair of theories in which the simplest that accounts for all of the required elements is not considered the most robust. I never remotely suggested that simplicity is a replacement for experimentation, the idea doesn't make sense. The Copernican vs. the Ptolemaic view of the Solar System is an obvious example of a theory that became dominant primarily because it was more parsimonious; although we have additional evidence of heliocentrism since (though not of the sun being the center of the universe).

We always accept the more complex theory if it better accounts for reality, though we may use an earlier theory if it 'works well enough' while understanding that it's not exactly correct. Lacking elements that the more complex theory accounts for that the simpler theory doesn't, the more complex theory will only be correct by coincidence; as the additional complexity isn't necessitated by any observations.

It's also worth noting that acceptance of a theory is provisional. Circular orbits may have been the most rational theory to embrace given the background knowledge of the time. Circular orbits fit the data in a way that elliptical orbits did not. It isn't about correctness, as all theories are false on some level. It's about what is the most rational theory to embrace. As Hume said, "A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." At the time, circular orbits were a better fit for the data and it would have been irrational to embrace elliptical orbits lacking any better data.

(March 22, 2021 at 11:37 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I know of no pair of theories in which the simplest that accounts for all of the required elements [emphasis added] is not considered the most robust. 

Science is never in a long enough period of stasis to make such comparisons valuable. And what exactly is your measure of simplicity?

Early in the history of neuroscience there was a debate over the nature of neurons. Golgi argued that neurons were a continuous network; and Cajal argued that neurons were discreet cells. How would you measure simplicity in this scenario? Golgi's view might be simpler, if by simple you mean number of entities proposed; Cajal's view is as complex as the number of neurons it assumes. Golgi's view is perhaps also simpler, in that it doesn't introduce any new problems; Cajal, in contrast, has to figure out how discrete cells can communicate with each other.

If it's a theory of neurons then the neuron is the unit of comparison, which favors Cajal.

This reminds me of your earlier argument analysis. It can be hard if not impossible to remove the subjectivity from some of these things. Mereological assumptions a starting point.

(March 22, 2021 at 1:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: If it's a theory of neurons then the neuron is the unit of comparison, which favors Cajal.  

One could argue that Cajal's explanation was better, not because of simplicity, but because of consistency within a larger scope of theories, namely, biology's Cell Theory. And yet this approach quickly runs into the problem of induction. Experimentation alone is the only measure of a theory's worth.

Do you think, stupid atheists, that this doesn't point to a designer? Screw you and your objections

(March 22, 2021 at 2:11 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Do you think, stupid atheists, that this doesn't point to a designer? Screw you and your objections

If that is evidence of design, it’s evidence of a remarkably inept designer, since those two are essentially the same as



so, screw you and your willfully ignorant gullibility.

Boru

We've probably all seen a bird or two in our life Kloro - if we didn't already think that birds had to come from meat fairies, why would a picture of any one bird or another make us start to think that?

(March 22, 2021 at 2:09 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 22, 2021 at 1:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: If it's a theory of neurons then the neuron is the unit of comparison, which favors Cajal.  

One could argue that Cajal's explanation was better, not because of simplicity, but because of consistency within a larger scope of theories, namely, biology's Cell Theory. And yet this approach quickly runs into the problem of induction. Experimentation alone is the only measure of a theory's worth.

I have a theory that ice cream trucks cause drownings. If I observe ice cream trucks and drownings for several years, what do you think I'll find?

I don't understand what you're asking.