4 ms·

If you can't explain how the statement could be falsified, at least in principle (although it may be not practical to do so), then you are admitting that realit

If you can't explain how the statement could be falsified, at least in principle (although it may be not practical to do so), then you are admitting that reality will always be the exact same regardless of whether your hypothesis is true. And in that case, it's really not useful or meaningful for any sort of reasoning at all. A concept which will in no way ever make a difference, is meaningless.

karencarits 3y ago
But it can be hard to know whether a concept will make a difference in the future. String theory may for example provide some testable hypotheses at some point. Theory building is important and original thoughts may have unpredicted consequences some way down the road
kybernetikos 3y ago
MWI of quantum physics is most likely unfalsifiable. But if I believe that there are other versions of me that will definitely win the lottery if I am the sort of person to enter it in particular circumstances then that may well change my behaviour. I would argue that occams razor is unfalsifiable but is still a great principle.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > I would argue that occams razor is unfalsifiable but is still a great principle. Occam's razor is provable, in the sense it's a heuristic based on probability. Out of the two alternative hypotheses explaining the same observations to the same degree, the simpler one is more likely to be true.
  - BellsOnSunday 3y ago
    More likely but not certain. People who rely on this rhetorically tend to ignore it isn't a slam dunk.
  - ukj 3y ago
    Hickam's dictum is also provable. In the domains where simplicity prevails Occam's razor is more probable. In domains where complexity prevails Hickam's dictum is more probable.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Haven't heard of Hickam's dictum before, thanks! I see how it makes sense, given it comes from medicine - the very field dedicated to literally the single most complex system we know of: the human body. But I don't see it as an opposite to Occam's razor - rather, a missing lower bound. That is, I see Hickam's dictum as a reminder that some hypotheses may be too simple. My guess at how one would formalize this is, when you're comparing hypotheses explaining something in a given domain (such as "behavior of things being thrown", or "health of a human body"), there is a level of complexity inherent to the domain. A hypothesis that's so simple as to fall below that level is too simple - it doesn't have enough bits to express what's happening within the domain. The further below the complexity threshold it is, the more likely it is to be falsified by new evidence. In contrast, hypotheses above the domain complexity level are all capable of explaining the domain fully; however, the more complex a hypothesis, the more likely it is to be at least partially wrong. This gives us the following takes: - Occam's razor: for hypotheses above the domain complexity threshold, the least complex one is most likely to be true. - Hickam's dictum: your hypothesis is way below the domain complexity threshold - which you didn't notice, because you don't appreciate how complex the domain is in the first place. Reconciliation: - The closer a hypothesis is to the domain complexity level, the more likely it is to correctly explain new evidence. The best hypothesis matches the complexity of the domain. Above it, hypotheses gain superfluous parts, which are either redundant (unlikely), or wrong (very likely). Below it, hypotheses are always wrong - they're too simple to account for all possible predictions, so new evidence will eventually falsify them. The tricky part is - even though we both postulate hypotheses and define their domain, we tend to hand-wave the latter a lot, so in some cases (like medicine) we may not realize that our hypotheses are too simple.
      - kybernetikos 3y ago
        This is an interesting way of thinking about it, but then it becomes essential to determine what the 'domain complexity level' is for any domain, and the possibility of unending argument on what that that level is will almost certainly destroy any value that either dictum or razor have.
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    That is not what occam razor means. It doesn’t say anything about probabilities. It says that if two models give the same predictions, you should chose the simpler. If the models make the same predictions, neither can be said to be more true than the other. But if there is a difference in falsifiable predictions, this can be used to determine which model is best - but then occams razor does not apply. The most correct model wins, whether or not it is the simplest.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > It doesn’t say anything about probabilities. It says that if two models give the same predictions, you should chose the simpler. Which is where it becomes probabilistic. The answer to what it means for one model to be "simpler" than another is part of information theory, and that is essentially the flip side of probability theory. Information is (unsurprisingly) counted in bits, and one way of defining "a bit" is as amount of information that cuts your uncertainty by half. > If the models make the same predictions, neither can be said to be more true than the other. But if there is a difference in falsifiable predictions, this can be used to determine which model is best - but then occams razor does not apply. The most correct model wins, whether or not it is the simplest. The point of applying the razor is that, if there's no evidence to support one model over other, your best bet is to chose the simpler one now, because when new evidence comes to light that will favor one over other, it's more likely to favor the simpler one.
      - bazoom42 3y ago
        > The point of applying the razor is that, if there's no evidence to support one model over other, your best bet is to chose the simpler one now, because when new evidence comes to light that will favor one over other, it's more likely to favor the simpler one. I highly doubt that. The history of science has plenty of examples where more complex hypotheses turn out to be more correct. E.g Einsteins relativity is more complex than Newtonian mechanics, but nevertheless better matches observations. The current model of the universe is far more complex than the Ptolmaic model, the periodic system is more conplex than the four elements etc. Occams razor applies if two models make the same predictions and therefore neither can be more correct than the other.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ukj 3y ago
In asking a statement to be falsified (in principle) you are assuming it to be true (in principle). Is is true? What makes it true? >A concept which will in no way ever make a difference, is meaningless. So what would falsify this statement? How would you convince yourself that you are wrong?

karencarits 3y ago

But it can be hard to know whether a concept will make a difference in the future. String theory may for example provide some testable hypotheses at some point. Theory building is important and original thoughts may have unpredicted consequences some way down the road

kybernetikos 3y ago

MWI of quantum physics is most likely unfalsifiable. But if I believe that there are other versions of me that will definitely win the lottery if I am the sort of person to enter it in particular circumstances then that may well change my behaviour. I would argue that occams razor is unfalsifiable but is still a great principle.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> I would argue that occams razor is unfalsifiable but is still a great principle. Occam's razor is provable, in the sense it's a heuristic based on probability. Out of the two alternative hypotheses explaining the same observations to the same degree, the simpler one is more likely to be true.
- BellsOnSunday 3y ago
  More likely but not certain. People who rely on this rhetorically tend to ignore it isn't a slam dunk.
- ukj 3y ago
  Hickam's dictum is also provable. In the domains where simplicity prevails Occam's razor is more probable. In domains where complexity prevails Hickam's dictum is more probable.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Haven't heard of Hickam's dictum before, thanks! I see how it makes sense, given it comes from medicine - the very field dedicated to literally the single most complex system we know of: the human body. But I don't see it as an opposite to Occam's razor - rather, a missing lower bound. That is, I see Hickam's dictum as a reminder that some hypotheses may be too simple. My guess at how one would formalize this is, when you're comparing hypotheses explaining something in a given domain (such as "behavior of things being thrown", or "health of a human body"), there is a level of complexity inherent to the domain. A hypothesis that's so simple as to fall below that level is too simple - it doesn't have enough bits to express what's happening within the domain. The further below the complexity threshold it is, the more likely it is to be falsified by new evidence. In contrast, hypotheses above the domain complexity level are all capable of explaining the domain fully; however, the more complex a hypothesis, the more likely it is to be at least partially wrong. This gives us the following takes: - Occam's razor: for hypotheses above the domain complexity threshold, the least complex one is most likely to be true. - Hickam's dictum: your hypothesis is way below the domain complexity threshold - which you didn't notice, because you don't appreciate how complex the domain is in the first place. Reconciliation: - The closer a hypothesis is to the domain complexity level, the more likely it is to correctly explain new evidence. The best hypothesis matches the complexity of the domain. Above it, hypotheses gain superfluous parts, which are either redundant (unlikely), or wrong (very likely). Below it, hypotheses are always wrong - they're too simple to account for all possible predictions, so new evidence will eventually falsify them. The tricky part is - even though we both postulate hypotheses and define their domain, we tend to hand-wave the latter a lot, so in some cases (like medicine) we may not realize that our hypotheses are too simple.
    - kybernetikos 3y ago
      This is an interesting way of thinking about it, but then it becomes essential to determine what the 'domain complexity level' is for any domain, and the possibility of unending argument on what that that level is will almost certainly destroy any value that either dictum or razor have.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  That is not what occam razor means. It doesn’t say anything about probabilities. It says that if two models give the same predictions, you should chose the simpler. If the models make the same predictions, neither can be said to be more true than the other. But if there is a difference in falsifiable predictions, this can be used to determine which model is best - but then occams razor does not apply. The most correct model wins, whether or not it is the simplest.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > It doesn’t say anything about probabilities. It says that if two models give the same predictions, you should chose the simpler. Which is where it becomes probabilistic. The answer to what it means for one model to be "simpler" than another is part of information theory, and that is essentially the flip side of probability theory. Information is (unsurprisingly) counted in bits, and one way of defining "a bit" is as amount of information that cuts your uncertainty by half. > If the models make the same predictions, neither can be said to be more true than the other. But if there is a difference in falsifiable predictions, this can be used to determine which model is best - but then occams razor does not apply. The most correct model wins, whether or not it is the simplest. The point of applying the razor is that, if there's no evidence to support one model over other, your best bet is to chose the simpler one now, because when new evidence comes to light that will favor one over other, it's more likely to favor the simpler one.
    - bazoom42 3y ago
      > The point of applying the razor is that, if there's no evidence to support one model over other, your best bet is to chose the simpler one now, because when new evidence comes to light that will favor one over other, it's more likely to favor the simpler one. I highly doubt that. The history of science has plenty of examples where more complex hypotheses turn out to be more correct. E.g Einsteins relativity is more complex than Newtonian mechanics, but nevertheless better matches observations. The current model of the universe is far more complex than the Ptolmaic model, the periodic system is more conplex than the four elements etc. Occams razor applies if two models make the same predictions and therefore neither can be more correct than the other.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ukj 3y ago

In asking a statement to be falsified (in principle) you are assuming it to be true (in principle). Is is true? What makes it true? >A concept which will in no way ever make a difference, is meaningless. So what would falsify this statement? How would you convince yourself that you are wrong?