Well, if we have an expectation of getting more evidence, we really shouldn't be disposing of any potential solutions. We may tend to work with one, but the rest should still be documented in case the evidence points the other way.
Occam's Razor doesn't get used to judge between competing, sensible theories much. It's really more of an injunction against invoking invisible magic pixies to push photons around when theory can work quite happily with pixie-free photons; scenarious like that.
Up until we find evidence of invisible photon-pushing magic pixies, of course. Nature keeps rejecting my breakthrough paper, the ignorant fools.
Occam's Razor is fine, it just tends to get misapplied. It doesn't suggest that the simpler solution is likelier to be correct. Rather, where there are competing explanations with no means of distinguishing between them, you may as well use the simplest one -- not because it's any likelier to be true, but because it's easier to work with and, in the absence of any distinguishing factor, it makes no difference which explanation you use.
The common phrasing of the razor, "Do not multiply entities needlessly", itself implies this by the word 'needlessly.' You are fully entitled to multiply entities if you need to, as you often will.
If evidence allows you to distinguish between explanations -- as with your suggested examples of where the simpler solution is false -- then Occam's Razor would not require you to keep an explanation that is demonstratably false. After all, if an explanation is wrong, then it is not a valid answer at all.
Occam's Razor only applies where there is no other way of determing which explanation to adopt. Where there are better ways, such as experiments, we use those.
Actually, the UK does recognise the right to self-defence -- with reasonable force. It sounds like the case in question is the Tony Martin case, which specifically hinged on whether his actions constituted reasonable self-defence or were retaliatory acts committed out of anger.
The jury found the latter to be the case.
We of course cannot know exactly why juries make particular decisions -- but, in this case, ballistic evidence suggested the third and final shot was taken after the burglars fled. Which does not speak of self defence.
if I buy better locks and window bars for my house the police should no longer patrol around my house. The only reason they drive around my neighborhood is that it's so easy to break into houses and steal things, right?
On the other hand, if you and your neighbours live on a busy throughfare and decide to prevent car thieves from stealing your parked cars by blocking the road with locked gates so no-one can get in or out without your say-so, then certainly the authorities should take an interest.
I agree that there are a number of people who think they should just be able to copy other people's work -- but that doesn't preclude people from having legitimate concerns about particular implementations of technological and legal copy protection, and how they impact on the honest citizen.
There are still honest citizens out there, after all. Is it right that they should be affected -- as they are with prevention of fair use rights, and the restrictions of the DMCA -- because of the crimes of others? Innocent until proven guilty, remember.
If a company came up with a technological form of copy protection that somehow restricted illegal copying of material without affecting the rights and abilities of the honest user, then I would be all in favour of it.
The problem is it's rather the other way round. So far, there's no technological fix that can't be got round (and, in the case of music, there never can be -- because there's always the 'audio hole') by a copyright violator. Instead, these 'protections' remove fair use rights from people who never wanted to violate the copyright -- an outcome that may benefit the companies, but doesn't benefit the general population.
If companies are neglecting their side of the social bargain copyright represents, should they receive all their benefits thereof from said bargain? It is at least an interesting question.
"A theory is scientifically valid if it can be disproven by experiment"
Ouch, that's got to have hurt - your foot's going to be in plaster for quite a while.
Assuming that's a foot-in-mouth type comment...
The grandparent post is entirely correct. The validity of a scientific theoy is based upon its ability to be disproven by experiment. Note that this is the ability to be disproven, not having been disproven.
The scientific method (in the ideal sense) works by proposing theories, then trying to show that they are wrong.
See, we do it that way because it's impossible to completely prove a theory. A theory defines a certain way systems should behave. To prove this, one would have to observe all systems in the history of the universe and establish that they all worked according to the theory -- a somewhat arduous task. However, if you find just one case that contradicts the theory, that theory is disproven.
So, the method is to test unusual cases, and see if they work as the theory would predict. If not, the theory needs to be replaced with a new, better theory (which'll need to explain all those cases that supported the original theory, as well as the new, differing, case).
Until a theory has been disproven (and once you've got at least some supporting cases), it can be considered to be "correct" for practical purposes. The longer a theory stands up to testing, the likelier it is to be "true".
As an aside, time travel hypotheses sometimes represent a search for these unusual cases. These ideas may be impractical to actually achieve, but they're often being considered in an attempt to find holes in relativity, to aid in replacing it with a theory of quantum gravity -- reconciling relativity and quauntum physics.
(Of course, if that wasn't a foot-in-mouth type comment, just ignore me).
Socialism isn't about giving everyone an equal outcome, it's about giving everyone a *reasonable* outcome, which is a different animal again.
Trying to give everyone an equal outcome is flawed in exactly the way you describe -- it leads to reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Trying to give everyone a fair shot is equally flawed, though -- people vary, and is it fair to make them suffer poverty because they don't meet a certain standard in whichever criteria are required to succeed in their society?
So, instead you define a comfortable minimum living standard and try to ensure everyone is at that level. If some people do well for themselves and have an even more comfortable life, well good for them! Provided everyone has a 'good' life, where's the problem?
(Disclaimer: yes, this policy also has flaws, the most notable being that it'd probably increase the number of 'slackers', leading to deleterious economic effects. Show me a political philosophy that doesn't have flaws and takes us as close to an utopia as possible. Please. No, really, please do... in the meantime, it seems to me that one's (informed) choice of political philosophy is largely contingent on which flaws you deem acceptable, and which you consider unthinkable.)
Slashdot Mirror
Commonly, neither do the Scots, the Welsh, or the (Northern) Irish. [1]
What was your point again?
[1] Possibly also the occasional politically-minded Cornish person.
Occam's Razor doesn't get used to judge between competing, sensible theories much. It's really more of an injunction against invoking invisible magic pixies to push photons around when theory can work quite happily with pixie-free photons; scenarious like that.
Up until we find evidence of invisible photon-pushing magic pixies, of course. Nature keeps rejecting my breakthrough paper, the ignorant fools.
The common phrasing of the razor, "Do not multiply entities needlessly", itself implies this by the word 'needlessly.' You are fully entitled to multiply entities if you need to, as you often will.
If evidence allows you to distinguish between explanations -- as with your suggested examples of where the simpler solution is false -- then Occam's Razor would not require you to keep an explanation that is demonstratably false. After all, if an explanation is wrong, then it is not a valid answer at all.
Occam's Razor only applies where there is no other way of determing which explanation to adopt. Where there are better ways, such as experiments, we use those.
The jury found the latter to be the case.
We of course cannot know exactly why juries make particular decisions -- but, in this case, ballistic evidence suggested the third and final shot was taken after the burglars fled. Which does not speak of self defence.
For more on the case, see The Guardian
I think I'd like a second opinion, doctor.
On the other hand, if you and your neighbours live on a busy throughfare and decide to prevent car thieves from stealing your parked cars by blocking the road with locked gates so no-one can get in or out without your say-so, then certainly the authorities should take an interest.
I agree that there are a number of people who think they should just be able to copy other people's work -- but that doesn't preclude people from having legitimate concerns about particular implementations of technological and legal copy protection, and how they impact on the honest citizen.
There are still honest citizens out there, after all. Is it right that they should be affected -- as they are with prevention of fair use rights, and the restrictions of the DMCA -- because of the crimes of others? Innocent until proven guilty, remember.
If a company came up with a technological form of copy protection that somehow restricted illegal copying of material without affecting the rights and abilities of the honest user, then I would be all in favour of it.
The problem is it's rather the other way round. So far, there's no technological fix that can't be got round (and, in the case of music, there never can be -- because there's always the 'audio hole') by a copyright violator. Instead, these 'protections' remove fair use rights from people who never wanted to violate the copyright -- an outcome that may benefit the companies, but doesn't benefit the general population.
If companies are neglecting their side of the social bargain copyright represents, should they receive all their benefits thereof from said bargain? It is at least an interesting question.
Ouch, that's got to have hurt - your foot's going to be in plaster for quite a while.
Assuming that's a foot-in-mouth type comment...
The grandparent post is entirely correct. The validity of a scientific theoy is based upon its ability to be disproven by experiment. Note that this is the ability to be disproven, not having been disproven.
The scientific method (in the ideal sense) works by proposing theories, then trying to show that they are wrong.
See, we do it that way because it's impossible to completely prove a theory. A theory defines a certain way systems should behave. To prove this, one would have to observe all systems in the history of the universe and establish that they all worked according to the theory -- a somewhat arduous task. However, if you find just one case that contradicts the theory, that theory is disproven.
So, the method is to test unusual cases, and see if they work as the theory would predict. If not, the theory needs to be replaced with a new, better theory (which'll need to explain all those cases that supported the original theory, as well as the new, differing, case).
Until a theory has been disproven (and once you've got at least some supporting cases), it can be considered to be "correct" for practical purposes. The longer a theory stands up to testing, the likelier it is to be "true".
As an aside, time travel hypotheses sometimes represent a search for these unusual cases. These ideas may be impractical to actually achieve, but they're often being considered in an attempt to find holes in relativity, to aid in replacing it with a theory of quantum gravity -- reconciling relativity and quauntum physics.
(Of course, if that wasn't a foot-in-mouth type comment, just ignore me).
Socialism isn't about giving everyone an equal outcome, it's about giving everyone a *reasonable* outcome, which is a different animal again.
Trying to give everyone an equal outcome is flawed in exactly the way you describe -- it leads to reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. Trying to give everyone a fair shot is equally flawed, though -- people vary, and is it fair to make them suffer poverty because they don't meet a certain standard in whichever criteria are required to succeed in their society?
So, instead you define a comfortable minimum living standard and try to ensure everyone is at that level. If some people do well for themselves and have an even more comfortable life, well good for them! Provided everyone has a 'good' life, where's the problem?
(Disclaimer: yes, this policy also has flaws, the most notable being that it'd probably increase the number of 'slackers', leading to deleterious economic effects. Show me a political philosophy that doesn't have flaws and takes us as close to an utopia as possible. Please. No, really, please do... in the meantime, it seems to me that one's (informed) choice of political philosophy is largely contingent on which flaws you deem acceptable, and which you consider unthinkable.)