NaimKabir OP t1_j38361c wrote
Reply to comment by AllanfromWales1 in Occam’s Deepest Cut: Occam's Razor isn't a guide towards the truth—it *defines* the truth by NaimKabir
Correct. I didn't say Occam's razor is the sole definer: the other side of the equation is if your model has been falsified.
But given two competing unfalsified theories, what we call "true" is given by simplicity considerations. This falls out naturally from Karl Poppers framework in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and I draw out that logical argument here. This is something Popper puts forward indirectly himself.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_j3btv64 wrote
>But given two competing unfalsified theories, what we call "true" is given by simplicity considerations.
Sounds like some weird philosophical definition of "true" rather than anything anyone in science would understand.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j38p6o9 wrote
Almost complete change of subject, but I don't see Popper as unsullied by Kuhn et al's work.
NaimKabir OP t1_j397ykc wrote
Not at all! They jive together very well
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments