MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Truth is Always Simple (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When the right answers are found, they will be simple and beautiful.
-- Albert Einstein


As to whether or not they will be beautiful, we make no comment but, that the answers will be simple, Applied Epistemologists agree.

We state as a rule of our method:

The truth is always simple.

This is a new formulation of the scientific principle known as Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is often stated thusly:
The simplest answer, consistent with the facts, is most likely to be true.

The original reads,
Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

Isaac Newton phrased it as,

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.


Applied Epistemology takes issue with the traditional formulations. None of them are sufficiently strong and, in their weakness, encourage the acceptance by scientists of unnecessary complexity in their models, in the absence of a viable alternative.

Where no simpler model exists, Occam's Razor affords no means of challenging an accepted theory on the basis of complexity alone. The Applied Epistemological principle shifts the burden of proof, presuming the simplicity of the correct answer unless the necessity of complexity is strongly evidenced.

A complicated theory is judged improbable even where no alternative exists.

This presumption encourages the search for a less complex alternative, where Occam's Razor would not actively encourage such a search.

To determine whether a theory is unnecessarily complex, Applied Epistemology employs a test: The seven-year-old's rule;

If a theory can't be explained, such that a typical seven-year-old child could understand it, that theory is likely to be false.

Thus we conclude that, if a seven-year-old can't understand you, you're probably wrong.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why have I lost my ability to edit your text? We are not Applied Entomologists and a theory can't not be explained.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We are not Applied Entomologists


I found that out when I discovered a very strange looking moth that turned out to be nothing more than a common poplar hawk moth.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The seven-year-old's rule;

If a theory can't be explained, such that a typical seven-year-old child could understand it, that theory is likely to be false.


But that rule also leads us astray sometimes. The reason virtually all scientists believe in Darwinism is because it is such a simple and beautiful theory. (It could certainly be understood by a seven year old.)

They believe in it despite absolutely no evidence for its truth being uncovered in over a century!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
But that rule also leads us astray sometimes.


The rule only tells us when something is false. It doesn't tell us when something is true.

The moon is made of green cheese is also relatively simple. It passes the test I suppose. But that ain't the only test.
Send private message
David Pinnegar



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hi!

I'm not at all sure that seeking merely the obvious and apparently simple is the solution to all. Objects are one dimension and are visible whereas reasons are another dimension and often less than visible. There may be connexions behind reasons even less so. Much of the world's ill's are caused by linear thinking or two dimensional imaging whereas four or even five dimensions are helpful in elevating the human's consciousness.

I'm writing a book about this and if anyone is interested I would happily send out a draft of the manuscript for critical and testing comment.

I'm posting the introduction below, which examines the mathematics of the number 1. It's not new to mathematicians, physicists and engineers but has much greater implication than generally appreciated.

Best wishes

David P

{Long screed (introduction to book) removed so as to save everyone's time}
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is why I had originally set this particular forum to "by invitation only."
Send private message
David Pinnegar



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hi!

Apologies. I have clearly failed the intelligence test required of this forum in actually making decisions as to what to post where or rather where to post what. The response to my first post to this forum sent me looking, and I looked and could not find, and have clearly found "j" to be in the wrong place.

Apologies.

However, my post has relevance to this thread because whilst the most simple answer, such as 1 or -1, might appear perfectly simple the real roots to 1 or -1 are rather more complex.

So simplicity can hide complexity underlying it and in that way can be deceptive.

Best wishes

David P
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dear Mr Pinnegar
Nobody reads long screeds. Think of something interesting and relevant and post it up in a 100 words or less.
Send private message
David Pinnegar



View user's profile
Reply with quote

:-)

Thanks

I had receieved a response "Have you seen this forum's Reading Room for new books?" and, appearing to be more elusive than "j", it's clear that either I'm blind or have failed the forum's intelligence test . . .

Help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Best wishes

David P
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is no longer available.
Send private message
David Pinnegar



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Thanks. Pleased to hear that The Truth is Always Simple rather than merely my brain.

Best wishes

David P
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This odd site popped up on my Google Monitor today. Never heard of it before ... has anyone else? The second comment, by Jimmy Keelo, re AE is rather on the money.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/content/2crYN9/likes
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Cool. I think he likes my posts best.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That's exactly what struck me.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group