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

Warp wrote:
> 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.
> 
My guess is that it is the way you express that opinion.

Post a reply to this message

> 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.
> 

Because instead of simply expressing your opinion for what it is, you
prefer build a complex argumentation relying on rather fuzzy,
ill-defined, or downright wrong ideas, phrasing it as if you were the
sole tenant of every truth in the world, insulting quite a few people
and their convictions in the process.

Because, when people try to explain you something, you are not even
trying to understand what could be true or useful in what they are
saying, but instead seeking how they are wrong in every possible way,
generating lengthy arguments in the process, just for the apparent sake
of finally seeing someone saying that you are right. On whatever minor
irrelevant detail.

And of course every such discussion ends exactly like this, you say that
people on the Internet do not understand you, that they are seeing bad
intentions that are not there, and ultimately that you don't care about
anyone else's opinion. Yeah, because as you say it happens to you all
the time, so it must be a problem with others. Well, if this point of
view makes you feel good...

Frankly I've been reading three such discussions recently, and I can
remember several of your "duels" with Darren and others before... And
each time I'm lamenting at how you use up that much of your intelligence
struggling in lost battles you started yourself.

Not that I'm hoping you change in any way, but that is how I see things...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message