Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:

> > 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.

  I think that the spirit of the principle is that if two theories are
equivalent, there's no reason to choose the more complex one if the
simpler one explains the same things, not that the simpler one is somehow
automatically more "correct" than the more complex one.

  Simplicity by itself is in no way an indication of correctness, nor
a proof of anything.

  And by "correct" I mean the theory accurately describes the phenomenon
as it really is, not "what is by current knowledge, inside the limits of
our measurement capabilities, most plausible".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message