In Reply to: Re: Two small points posted by LarryR on December 9, 2003 at 11:26:24:
Great questions. I won't pretend to necessarily be competent to provide good answers.I understand the first point regarding people who "know" the evidence to be most applicable to scholarly scientific discussion, which includes rigorous peer review. If a scientist produces "evidence", from what I understand, he is required to describe in detail the protocol he followed and the analytic tools he used to produce such evidence. By doing so, he permits others the opportunity to attempt and re-produce his results. This not only keeps everyone honest, but it also guards against innocent error.
Of course, such rigor cannot be expect on this board. However, I believe Steve is attempting, as best he can, to verify the "evidence" which has been reported by both Bruno and JC to ensure that further work which might attempt to build upon their test results would be productive.
As to your second point regarding the seeming inconsistency between those two rules, I have asked myself the same question without coming up with a wholly satisfactory answer. The best I have come up with so far is to conclude that they are simply two different ways or angles, both of which should be applied in seeking the truth.
I don't think he means to suggest that Occam's Razor should be employed blindly and that it applies in all cases. Rather it is simply a good rule of thumb which should be applied judiciously. The other rule I read as simply saying "don't jump to conclusions."
Thanks for raising the issues. I didn't sense you were attempting to be argumentative, but rather were simply raising some interesting points for discussion, which I think is always a good thing. And, BTW, I don't think saying something argumentative is a bad thing, just so long as it deals with facts and reason and is not simply an application of one of the "fallacies", which you post most certainly was not.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Two small points - Phil Tower 14:37:31 12/09/03 (6)
- Re: Two small points - john curl 19:35:00 12/09/03 (4)
- Re: Two small points - Phil Tower 21:31:19 12/09/03 (2)
- Re: Two small points - john curl 23:12:33 12/09/03 (1)
- Re: Two small points - Phil Tower 08:00:57 12/10/03 (0)
- Re: Two small points - Steve Eddy 20:14:16 12/09/03 (0)
- Thanks for the info, Phil - It's given me something more to think about..........(nt) - LarryR 15:05:55 12/09/03 (0)