Wiki Critique: Occam's Razor

Quote from: markjo on April 23, 2012, 08:19:47 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 08:03:09 PM

But, how can an undevised theory of reality be incompatible with reality?

Because things that don't exist are generally incompatible with things that do exist.

All theories didn't exist at some point.

Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?

Quote from: markjo on April 23, 2012, 08:19:47 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 08:03:09 PM

But, how can an undevised theory of reality be incompatible with reality?

Because things that don't exist are generally incompatible with things that do exist.

All theories didn't exist at some point.

And FET still doesn't exist as a coherent theory at this point.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 23, 2012, 06:20:26 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:14:00 PM

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

I don't know what that means, but I do know that RET gravity does no such thing.

If you don't know what that means, how do you know it doesn't do it?

Easily. If I detect nonsense such as your claim, I can say RET doesn't. Now what did you mean?

Let's review your claim is the OR applies here. Then you claim that you've never applied OR to either FET or RET.  You seem to be very confused.

Let me present another way of explaining OR.

Let P(x) be the predictive power or x.
Let x be a set of tenets of a theory.
Let y be another set of tenets.

We reject y as part of the theory iff P(x+y) <= P(x)

OR does not select between two independent theories. It simply pares away unneeded tenets of a theory.

Let's work an made-up example.
Let x = {"The Sun is a sphere"}
Let y = {"The Sun rotates about its axis."}

P(x) does predict its appearance except for sunspots.
P(x+y) does also explain the periodic appearance of the sunspots.

Since P(x+y) > P(x) we do not reject y.

And another example:
Let x = {"To produce a honking noise I can press the center of my steering wheel."}
Let y = {"To produce a honking noise I must swear aloud before pressing the center."}

P(x) does predict the noise.
P(x+y) does also predict the noise.

Since P(x+y) = P(x) we reject y.
(This is how to reduce superstitions, by the way.)

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:42:24 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 23, 2012, 06:20:26 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:14:00 PM

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

I don't know what that means, but I do know that RET gravity does no such thing.

If you don't know what that means, how do you know it doesn't do it?

Easily. If I detect nonsense such as your claim, I can say RET doesn't. Now what did you mean?

The point of my question is how do you "detect nonsense"?
Although I can't say I'm really interested in learning your "nonsense detection" methodology given how bad you are at it.

Radial vectors mean the 'lines' of gravity converge on epicenter(s). When those radial lines follow the curved surface, it means 1. that they are not parallel, and 2. that they all are perpendicular to the surface they intersect at the point they intersect.

Let's review your claim is the OR applies here.

Please show where I claimed I was applying OR.

Then you claim that you've never applied OR to either FET or RET.

I should think this would be a major hint to the oblivious. I was talking about my interpretation of Zetetic principles.

You seem to be very confused.

Irony.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 24, 2012, 03:42:47 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:42:24 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 23, 2012, 06:20:26 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:14:00 PM

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

I don't know what that means, but I do know that RET gravity does no such thing.

If you don't know what that means, how do you know it doesn't do it?

Easily. If I detect nonsense such as your claim, I can say RET doesn't. Now what did you mean?

The point of my question is how do you "detect nonsense"?
Although I can't say I'm really interested in learning your "nonsense detection" methodology given how bad you are at it.

Radial vectors mean the 'lines' of gravity converge on epicenter(s). When those radial lines follow the curved surface, it means 1. that they are not parallel, and 2. that they all are perpendicular to the surface they intersect at the point they intersect.

Irrelevant. It's nonsense to say the gravity follows radial vectors around a surface. Please read what you said.

Quote

Let's review your claim is the OR applies here.

Please show where I claimed I was applying OR.

I refer you to your Wiki. http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Occam%27s_Razor. You might notice that reference in the title of this thread as well.

The point of my question is how do you "detect nonsense"?
Although I can't say I'm really interested in learning your "nonsense detection" methodology given how bad you are at it.

It is not about ClockTower detecting nonsense, it is about Science separating good knowledge from nonsense. And compared with Zeteticism, Science has a history of success while Zeteticism (all its incarnations) have shown absolutely nothing.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 24, 2012, 04:32:44 PM

The point of my question is how do you "detect nonsense"?
Although I can't say I'm really interested in learning your "nonsense detection" methodology given how bad you are at it.

It is not about ClockTower detecting nonsense, it is about Science separating good knowledge from nonsense. And compared with Zeteticism, Science has a history of success while Zeteticism (all its incarnations) have shown absolutely nothing.

There are a lot of Zetetic sciences which operate without hypothesis, where experimentation is conducted without working towards a pre-conceived conclusion. Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not. When chemists want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

Experiment first, conclude after. That's how the truth is found.

When you hypothesize first and create an experiment around that hypothesis your experiment is fallacious because you are deliberately framing your experiment around whatever you are trying to prove. You might find a half-truth or misdirection. Finding the truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea (hypothesis) true. In the Scientific Method you're also told to stop experimenting as soon as you get a successful result.

Experimenting without hypothesis = Zetetic
Experimenting around a specific hypothesis = Theoretic

See Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Zeteticism (Empericism) blows the Scientific Method out of the water. While it might not be the most practical option to test all possibilities before coming to a conclusion, it is certainly the method which will bring the experimenter the closest to truth. The Scientific Method fails because it is based on creating and testing a hypothesis, rather than testing all competing possibilities. Multiple hypothesis' might be correct, but the experimenter wouldn't know that, as he was taught in school to publish his result and declare victory as soon as his hypothesis achieves a positive result.

When chemists want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

Are you suggesting that biochemists are not looking for very specific results when they test various chemicals on blood samples? 

Tom, how do you think hypotheses are formed?

And why do you think hypotheses are tested if people just want them to be true?

And why do you think other scientists insist on replicating experimental results and peer-reviewing before accepting any findings?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 25, 2012, 09:46:06 PM

When chemists want to know how different chemicals will react to red blood cells, for example, they create rooms and rooms of vials which test each and every result for the desired cause.

Are you suggesting that biochemists are not looking for very specific results when they test various chemicals on blood samples?

I'm talking about the procedure to find the results they're looking for. Under the Scientific Method they would start mixing blood cells with different chemicals and then stop and publish once they get something that looks successful. Under the Zetetic Method they would test each possibility and assess the results afterwards, which is what large pharmaceutical companies do. Some solutions might be better than others.

The Zetetic Method with the rooms of vials is clearly the best method.

Tom, how do you think hypotheses are formed?

And why do you think hypotheses are tested if people just want them to be true?

And why do you think other scientists insist on replicating experimental results and peer-reviewing before accepting any findings?

Hypotheses are formed by the experimenter's imagination.

Of course people want their hypothesis to be true. The Scientific Method clearly says that if your hypothesis is tested false, to create another hypothesis and test again. If the hypothesis is tested true, then you are done, publish your result. There is no consideration that there might be half-truths or stronger truths.

If another scientist conducts a peer review and recreates an experiment to test the experimenter's original hypothesis, that still does not address the fact that there might be better truths which are untested in the experiment. It is just confirming what might be a lesser truth.

"Tested true" in a single experiment just like that?  Hypotheses just come from the imagination and not, say, observations?

I'm starting to suspect that you have no idea what you're talking about.

"Tested true" in a single experiment just like that?

Yes. When a scientist gets a positive result he stops, perhaps later recreating that same experiment for confirmation that his hypothesis is "true". How many scientists do you see spending years trying to prove themselves wrong?

Hypotheses just come from the imagination and not, say, observations?

It doesn't matter what it is based on. The Scientific Method is still flawed.

Yes. When a scientist gets a positive result he stops, perhaps later recreating that same experiment for "confirmation". How many scientists do you see trying to prove themselves wrong?

The whole point of experiments is to see if hypotheses hold up, so I'd say lots of scientists do that daily.  You have some amazing bias against scientists.  You assume they all care more about their egos than their work.  You don't think they care about gaining new knowledge?

Trying to paint scientists as villainous creatures just makes you look ridiculous.  They work harder to find the truth than any FEer I've seen here.

It doesn't matter what it is based on. The Scientific Method is still flawed.

Frankly, I don't think you know enough about the scientific method to make this judgment.

The whole point of experiments is to see if hypotheses hold up, so I'd say lots of scientists do that daily.

The method of framing a test around a particular hypothesis and then stopping after a successful result is flawed.

You don't think they care about gaining new knowledge?

They may, but again, their procedures are flawed.

Trying to paint scientists as villainous creatures just makes you look ridiculous.  They work harder to find the truth than any FEer I've seen here.

What are you talking about? I just said that the methods used are flawed and inferior. But some of them do use the Zetetic Method. See the Folding at Home and similar experiments designed to test all possibilities without regard to hypothesis.

Frankly, I don't think you know enough about the scientific method to make this judgment.

The Scientific Method clearly instructs you to stop and publish your results after a successful test of your hypothesis. There's nothing about testing all possibilities.

The Scientific Method clearly instructs you to stop and publish your results after a successful test of your hypothesis. There's nothing about testing all possibilities.

I'm not sure the above is true but I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Would you be prepared to give me the details of a specific experiment following the scientific method where your concerns about not testing all possibilities are valid? It would be interesting to see if we can improve the experiment.

Hypotheses are formed by the experimenter's imagination.

Of course people want their hypothesis to be true. The Scientific Method clearly says that if your hypothesis is tested false, to create another hypothesis and test again.

While you seem to have a perverted view of the scientific method and the hypothesis/theory process, I will say that the best example of the quote above is FET/FES (only, maybe without the testing).

Based on the belief that the Earth is flat the posters on here invent hypothesis after hypothesis based on zero testing, evidence, etc.  But you want so badly for the theory of a flat Earth to be true, that when one after another, each hypothesis is cast into major doubt (if not disproved entirely) you simply change them, invent new ones, or claim that you were only pointing out someone elses hypothesis, but say it's not one you've ever adhered to.

Specific example?  How about the many vastly different maps, none based on actual date, each invented to try to explain away some problem, most conflicting directly with each other (and often other hypothoses invented here) and all conflicting with direct measurments in reality.  Sounds an awful lot like your perverted idea of the scientific method (inventing a hypothesis from imagination, not based on observation), and nothing like the Zetetic method you describe.  However, you do leave out the testing to try to prove it part.  Instead, people typically rely on claiming that the skeptics of each new hypothesis haven't done any testing to disprove it.

Experimenting around a specific hypothesis = Theoretic

So experimenting is theoretic. I thought your dumbed down arguments could not get any dumber. But how wrong was I.

What will be your next contribution. "Red = Green"?

Quote

The whole point of experiments is to see if hypotheses hold up, so I'd say lots of scientists do that daily.

The method of framing a test around a particular hypothesis and then stopping after a successful result is flawed.

This is where the peer review process comes in.  Just ask Pons and Fleishman how the scientific community feels about experiments that can't be successfully reproduced.

Science has a history of success[...]

Successful by what standards? The exclusive goals of science as previously mentioned?

Please read what you said.

Are you suggesting anything that you don't understand is nonsense?

I refer you to your Wiki. [...] You might notice that reference in the title of this thread as well.

You need to learn the difference between me, a thread title, and a wiki. Hint: neither the thread title or wiki-page can be assumed to speak on my behalf.

Quote

Please read what you said.

Are you suggesting anything that you don't understand is nonsense?

I refer you to your Wiki. [...] You might notice that reference in the title of this thread as well.
You need to learn the difference between me, a thread title, and a wiki. Hint: neither the thread title or wiki-page can be assumed to speak on my behalf.

I made no such assumption. You however assumed that 'you' mean you personally, not FEers in general. You might want to check your ego at the door.

If you don't care to stay on topic of the Wiki critique, then please start another thread to provide a relevant forum for you points. Thanks.

*I am not a mod.

I made no such assumption. You however assumed that 'you' mean you personally, not FEers in general. You might want to check your ego at the door.

Prior to that, I responded with the request to show me "where I made the claim". Your response made no attempt to clarify your ambiguous use of "your claim". Is it so surprising that this should be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the specific subject under discussion? Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn you changed the use of your "you", after you realized I never said what you attributed to me.

If you don't care to stay on topic of the Wiki critique, then please start another thread to provide a relevant forum for you points. Thanks.

It's true that this discussion was straying slightly off topic... I only interjected to correct/clarify oversimplifications of Zeteticism and Science. However, I wouldn't expect anyone to believe the content of my posts were actively applying OC just because it was mentioned in the title.

Quote

The whole point of experiments is to see if hypotheses hold up, so I'd say lots of scientists do that daily.

The method of framing a test around a particular hypothesis and then stopping after a successful result is flawed.

Quote

You don't think they care about gaining new knowledge?

They may, but again, their procedures are flawed.

Quote

Trying to paint scientists as villainous creatures just makes you look ridiculous.  They work harder to find the truth than any FEer I've seen here.

What are you talking about? I just said that the methods used are flawed and inferior. But some of them do use the Zetetic Method. See the Folding at Home and similar experiments designed to test all possibilities without regard to hypothesis.

Quote

Frankly, I don't think you know enough about the scientific method to make this judgment.

The Scientific Method clearly instructs you to stop and publish your results after a successful test of your hypothesis. There's nothing about testing all possibilities.

^^^ does not understand how science works.

You need an experiment that isolates controls and variables, so that you know for sure what you are testing is the only possible variable or sets of variables.