| Occam's blunt ecclesiasticism can't cut TT's mustard ... |  |  | |
| Post Reply | Forum | ||
|
Posted by: Angus Cunningham 02/10/2008, 09:55:46  (About author)
Edit |
From the Debating Forum Position Statement: "And DWA has reminded us that Carl Sagan had a "baloney detection kit." Here it is: o Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts o Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. o Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). o Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. o Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. o Quantify, wherever possible. o If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. o "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. o Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? Might we now change the bullet on "Occam's razor" from the list of doughty Carl Sagan provided us by DWA to read as follows: o "Occam's Razor" -- if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, BEGIN by choosing the simpler, BUT BE OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT ELEGANCE, MATHEMATICALLY DESIRABLE, IS A WORD SYMBOLIZING A CONCEPT/SENSE OTHER THAN TRUTH. Occasionally churchman Occam may have cut either his own chin or another thinker's throat! Perhaps he knew mathematics superlatively but, trapped in his ecclesiasticism, had only mediocre linguistic know-how! Comments? what's this |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert | View All | Previous | Next | Current page |
|
