3 ms·
It is the lens to apply to any system. You don't defend a tenuous conclusion by doubling down with a tenuous defense. "Science" is constantly inaccurate. I ca
by boringuser2 3y ago
It is the lens to apply to any system.
You don't defend a tenuous conclusion by doubling down with a tenuous defense.
"Science" is constantly inaccurate. I can pull two papers right now with opposing conclusions.
Assuming a scientific conclusion is simply incorrect is a pretty good bet, even if you have absolutely no context or idea what is happening at all.
- echelon 3y ago> It is the lens to apply to any system. I can point to countless instances where it fails to adequately guide investigation in biology. Occam's razor leads to premature simplification. When the space is vast, dynamical, and unknown, it's absolutely not a tool. Do you think, for instance, that V(D)J recombination satisfied Occam's razor when we asked ourselves how adaptive immunity worked, or how some forms of diseases such as SCID manifested? There is a metric ton of pure serendipity in the study of biology. We're drawing new connections between systems all the time. This is just a new data point.
- boringuser2 3y agoI think you're misunderstanding slightly the utility function of the logical device here. It's not so much that we cannot analyze a complex system using this criterion, it's moreso a tool that allows us to identify a logically tenable pathway for investigating a specific element of reality. For example, a poster above noted that I was misapplying the razor because he went one level below where I was analyzing. He's not necessarily incorrect, and neither am I. You interrogate reality at multiple levels of magnification, which is why you don't need to know how genes specifically work to know that they work and make predictions based on their prevalence, for example.