> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>>> The simplest explanation is not always the correct explanation. 
>>> Simplicity is no proof.
> 
>> Ever heard of Occam's razor?
> 
>   It doesn't make what I said above untrue.
> 

Depends on what you mean by "correct".

If we have a set of experimental facts and observations, and two 
competing theories that explain the facts, the consensus is that the 
correct theory is the simplest.

Short of bringing new facts to the table, the more complex theory has no 
purpose. But apparently you don't mind adding complexities for the sake 
of it.

I know you don't want philosophy, but really it all boils down to what 
you mean by truth or correctness. You always seem to be talking about 
some definitive and complete truth, which does not exist in the 
scientific world. Religion on the other hand is all about it...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message