> 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

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   That's curious, given that I have made absolutely no claims about the
>>> evolution theory. 
>> No you have, you said for instance that: 'You don't have to accept the 
>> entire evolution theory as true in order to accept the similarities 
>> between the hearts and take advantage of that'. Which is incompatible 
>> with my definition of evolution.
> 
>   What I said does not say anything about the evolution theory.

It does, it says it is something that can be subdivided. See also my 
next lines that you snipped.

> Accepting something which can be used as evidence pro evolution is not
> the same thing as accepting evolution.

you lost me there. I don't see what this open door has to do with this 
discussion. Possibly caused by the misconception that I want you to 
accept evolution, see also below.

>> I also note that you did not answer any question on how you can apply 
>> any knowledge derived from mice to humans without a common ancestor. You 
>> don't have to, but I am still curious.
> 
>   You are asking me to give arguments against the evolution theory.

No, not at all. You claim that you know a way to reconcile applying 
knowledge from animal experiments to humans and not believing that they 
have a common ancestor. That made me curious because I don't know one. I 
am not asking whether you believe it or not. It is just for the 
intellectual fun of it.

> I won't. I have never claimed the evolution theory is false (nor that
> it's true, for that matter). I don't want to get into a discussion on
> whether the evolution theory is true or not. You can try to drag me on
> that direction all you want, but I won't go there.
>

Post a reply to this message

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

>   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".
> 

But then your definition of "correct" implies that nothing is ever 
correct... You define it as necessarily outside of current knowledge...

Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct. Not much to discuss about 
starting from there, I'm afraid.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
> Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct.

  I just wish all those "I *know* theory X is true" people would
understand that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct.
> 
>   I just wish all those "I *know* theory X is true" people would
> understand that.

I think the point is that they *do* know that. They just use a different 
version of "true" than you do. One that's not universally qualified.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

474097aa@news.povray.org...
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct.
>
>  I just wish all those "I *know* theory X is true" people would
> understand that.

There's the theory that Warp is a human being. It's based on several facts, 
like the one that you're a programmer and that only human beings have been 
found to be programmers.

Now there's the theory that Warp is a cute little bunny with a pink nose and 
furry paws that pretends to be a human being. According to my theory, you're 
the only rabbit who knows programming. It's based on the fact that a google 
search on Warp+rabbit returns 600000 results. The web being the largest book 
known to man, it must be true (Warp+aardvark returns 100000 hits, so the 
probability of your being an aardvark is smaller).

Since you don't seem to grasp the difference between theories of the first 
type and "theories" of the second type, I'll call you a rabbit until you can 
disprove my theory. And if you dare tell me I'm stupid or silly, I'll be 
deeply hurt, you wascally wabbit.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>> Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct.
> 
>   I just wish all those "I *know* theory X is true" people would
> understand that.
> 
And I wish that all those "I *know* theory X is not true" people would 
understand that too.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> 474097aa@news.povray.org...
>> Vincent Le Chevalier <gal### [at] libertyallsurfspamfr> wrote:
>>> Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct.
>>  I just wish all those "I *know* theory X is true" people would
>> understand that.
> 
> There's the theory that Warp is a human being. It's based on several facts, 
> like the one that you're a programmer and that only human beings have been 
> found to be programmers.
> 
> Now there's the theory that Warp is a cute little bunny with a pink nose and 
> furry paws that pretends to be a human being. According to my theory, you're 
> the only rabbit who knows programming. It's based on the fact that a google 
> search on Warp+rabbit returns 600000 results. The web being the largest book 
> known to man, it must be true (Warp+aardvark returns 100000 hits, so the 
> probability of your being an aardvark is smaller).
> 
> Since you don't seem to grasp the difference between theories of the first 
> type and "theories" of the second type, I'll call you a rabbit until you can 
> disprove my theory. And if you dare tell me I'm stupid or silly, I'll be 
> deeply hurt, you wascally wabbit.
> 

Just when I was trying to make clear that I want to live in a rabbit 
free world, you come up with this :(

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> There's the theory that Warp is a human being. It's based on several facts, 
> like the one that you're a programmer and that only human beings have been 
> found to be programmers.

> Now there's the theory that Warp is a cute little bunny with a pink nose and 
> furry paws that pretends to be a human being. According to my theory, you're 
> the only rabbit who knows programming. It's based on the fact that a google 
> search on Warp+rabbit returns 600000 results. The web being the largest book 
> known to man, it must be true (Warp+aardvark returns 100000 hits, so the 
> probability of your being an aardvark is smaller).

> Since you don't seem to grasp the difference between theories of the first 
> type and "theories" of the second type, I'll call you a rabbit until you can 
> disprove my theory. And if you dare tell me I'm stupid or silly, I'll be 
> deeply hurt, you wascally wabbit.

  You win the price for the most far-fetched and off-point analogy so far.

  Btw, why is it that every time I express my opinion that we should
respect other people and not make fun of them nor insult them, I get
strong opposition? This is something that always keeps puzzling me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message