Ockham's Razor could be wrong!

[Strange]

What about the Newton's universal gravitation equation, can that be violated?

 

Of course: anomalous precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing, black holes, gravitational waves, an expanding and possibly finite universe, ...

 

All laws or theories can be wrong, that is how we make advances in science.

 

New thread for Universal Laws http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93577-are-there-universal-laws-can-you-break-them/

 

 

We already have (at least) one thread on this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93509-can-the-laws-of-physics-be-wrong/

[Robittybob1]

 

Of course: anomalous precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing, black holes, gravitational waves, an expanding and possibly finite universe, ...

 

All laws or theories can be wrong, that is how we make advances in science.

 

 

We already have (at least) one thread on this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93509-can-the-laws-of-physics-be-wrong/

That thread didn't get much traction, for the comment made the OP "lacks all rigor. You're just claiming this with nothing to support your idea except "It doesn't seem likely to me". This is known as the Argument from Incredulity, it's a logical fallacy, and a poor method of learning".

It was stopped in its track.

The thread I started is asking are there laws and can they be violated?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Phi for All]

That thread didn't get much traction, for the comment made the OP "lacks all rigor. You're just claiming this with nothing to support your idea except "It doesn't seem likely to me". This is known as the Argument from Incredulity, it's a logical fallacy, and a poor method of learning".

It was stopped in its track.

 

Considering that note was post #3, and the thread has 15 more posts after it, you have a funny definition of "stopped in its track". I really hope you start realizing we don't want a lack of rigor to turn this site into those you may frequent when you aren't here. Those sites are a dime a dozen, filled with all kinds of guesswork and wishful thinking. That's not what we're about here.

[Robittybob1]

 

Considering that note was post #3, and the thread has 15 more posts after it, you have a funny definition of "stopped in its track". I really hope you start realizing we don't want a lack of rigor to turn this site into those you may frequent when you aren't here. Those sites are a dime a dozen, filled with all kinds of guesswork and wishful thinking. That's not what we're about here.

I did say that in haste. For some reason I thought that thread was on my list of favorites but it wasn't. But I had read up to Swanson's critique and I thought this thread is not going anywhere. OK I was wrong. No, I am fully in favour of keeping this forum strong. I did write to one of the moderators regarding my "view new content button" for it wasn't working, but so far I haven't worked out how to fix it.

I reviewed the other thread discussing laws of physics "Can the laws of physics be wrong?" and its too argumentative to really be worth reading.

Some good posts though. #4 and #15

Newton's law of gravitation got slightly modified by Einstein's relativity. (still much the same in most situations isn't it?)

[Strange]

Newton's law of gravitation got slightly modified by Einstein's relativity. (still much the same in most situations isn't it?)

 

If you are going to use a stronger definition of "wrong", meaning totally incorrect then there are far fewer examples of that. There are a handful of theories in the history of science that have turned out the be wrong in that sense: phlogiston, steady state universe, and ... uhm ... you know ... errr ... the other examples....

[Robittybob1]

 

If you are going to use a stronger definition of "wrong", meaning totally incorrect then there are far fewer examples of that. There are a handful of theories in the history of science that have turned out the be wrong in that sense: phlogiston, steady state universe, and ... uhm ... you know ... errr ... the other examples....

I haven't had to argue along these lines before so I'm not even certain I had defined "wrong". OK Newton and Einstein had a totally different mechanism and speed for the interaction of gravity. Does the mechanism become part of the law or is it just the correctness of the result?

This is how I recollect it. The improvement to the orbit of Mercury by relativity was an extremely small amount but it accounted for the little tiny bit they couldn't account for by Newtonian mechanics alone.

But Newtonian mechanism alone would not be able to explain the mergers of the two black holes detected last year.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Robittybob1

[EdEarl]

Flat Earth, geocentric universe, solar centric universe, Milky Way Universe, astrology, alchemy, etc. have completely or mostly been turned over, and there are more. I partly depends on how popular you make the hypothesis to qualify as mainstream science and what you mean by overturned. Leachers were common medical practitioners at one time; they bled people because illness was caused by bad blood. Most ideas have been discarded and a few good ones survive. Most of my hair brained ideas die in minutes; some in seconds.

Edited February 17, 2016 by EdEarl

[Robittybob1]

@EdEarl - can't reply to that but it gives us an idea what it could have been like. I wonder if the advocates for those ideas used the Occam's razor argument to show why they were right and the new idea was wrong? If they are just overturned no issue. Some of them may have meet opposition from the religious leaders but I doubt if one of their arguments would have involved the Occam's razor., and it really isn't worth the effort to find out.

[EdEarl]

Occam's razor has been around since about 1300; it was used some since then.

[Robittybob1]

Occam's razor has been around since about 1300; it was used some since then.

Especially on places like science forums where new ideas are springing up all the time.

Just had an idea to do a historic search to see what threads on this forum discussed Occam's razor to any depth.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/24820-failures-of-occams-razor-in-medicine/page-2#entry334864was a pretty good summary at the end of a lively debate.

There will be others but that one in particular had an interesting title that attracted my attention.

"Failures of Occam's Razor In Medicine"

Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

I haven't had to argue along these lines before so I'm not even certain I had defined "wrong". OK Newton and Einstein had a totally different mechanism and speed for the interaction of gravity. Does the mechanism become part of the law or is it just the correctness of the result?

This is how I recollect it. The improvement to the orbit of Mercury by relativity was an extremely small amount but it accounted for the little tiny bit they couldn't account for by Newtonian mechanics alone.

But Newtonian mechanism alone would not be able to explain the mergers of the two black holes detected last year.

 

Exactly. So there are conditions where Newton's universal law of gravitation does not apply (it predicts the wrong value). So it is not as universal as the name implies. That is true of all laws. (In some cases, we may not have found the conditions where it doesn't apply!)

[Robittybob1]

 

Exactly. So there are conditions where Newton's universal law of gravitation does not apply (it predicts the wrong value). So it is not as universal as the name implies. That is true of all laws. (In some cases, we may not have found the conditions where it doesn't apply!)

What about the question: in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93564-ockhams-razor-could-be-wrong/page-2#entry906730

"Does the mechanism become part of the law or is it just the correctness of the result?"

Edited February 18, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

What about the question: in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93564-ockhams-razor-could-be-wrong/page-2#entry906730

"Does the mechanism become part of the law or is it just the correctness of the result?"

 

That depends on the "law". Newton's gravitation has no mechanism. A mechanism is implied (at least) by the Einstein Field Equations.

It also depends on what you mean by "wrong".

[Robittybob1]

 

That depends on the "law". Newton's gravitation has no mechanism. A mechanism is implied (at least) by the Einstein Field Equations.

It also depends on what you mean by "wrong".

Makes you think doesn't it.... X Files on TV plus Strange asking me what I mean as "wrong".

It made me think of what we've covered in this thread, how all those ideas Man has thought as correct and now in the rubbish bin. So what is correct is what is considered correct at the moment, whether it remains right or it will be found "wrong" sometime in the future.

[DrP]

I see what you are saying RR... but that kinda thing we do learn at GCSE level chemistry... Look at the history of the atom... it is a lovely story about our model of the atom changing with time. All the models were 'correct' and still hold for the limited understanding and info the scientists had at the time. Johnsone's plumb pudding! He was absolutely correct in his hypothesis that atoms were made from separate positive and negatively charged bits. He postulated a positive pudding with negative plumbs in it... he was right! To a degree... since then Bohr moved the theory on by showing there was a positive nucleus with the electrons orbiting this.. etc. etc. onto modern day models which are being refined continuously. It is how it works.

 

Do you have any scientific background?

 

 

[Robittybob1]

I see what you are saying RR... but that kinda thing we do learn at GCSE level chemistry... Look at the history of the atom... it is a lovely story about our model of the atom changing with time. All the models were 'correct' and still hold for the limited understanding and info the scientists had at the time. Johnsone's plumb pudding! He was absolutely correct in his hypothesis that atoms were made from separate positive and negatively charged bits. He postulated a positive pudding with negative plumbs in it... he was right! To a degree... since then Bohr moved the theory on by showing there was a positive nucleus with the electrons orbiting this.. etc. etc. onto modern day models which are being refined continuously. It is how it works.

 

Do you have any scientific background?

 

 

I was good at science at school, and took on a role as a veterinarian, but for the last 16 years I have dabbling in the revision of science and in spiritual things. In was all in an attempt to "solve Genesis". That takes you from the origin of the Universe to abiogenesis and formation of the Solar System and on and on, so much to think about if you were to ever attempt to explain how everything fits together. The one thing I am useless at is math and science revolves around the formulas. I'm seriously thinking of going back to school to learn maths.

[EdEarl]

Makes you think doesn't it.... X Files on TV plus Strange asking me what I mean as "wrong".

It made me think of what we've covered in this thread, how all those ideas Man has thought as correct and now in the rubbish bin. So what is correct is what is considered correct at the moment, whether it remains right or it will be found "wrong" sometime in the future.

Although many ideas have gone and are going into the rubbish bin a few have floated to the surface and seem to be correct, some having been tested hundreds of times as valid, yet scientists know there are dark realms to explore, nuances to resolve, and much to do. Alone, Faraday made significant discoveries and without knowing math; today math and teamwork are essential to progress; that in itself is a measure of the progress science has made. Instruments to study science often now cost billions, yet they are being built at a record pace, including space telescopes, extremely large ground based telescopes, particle accelerators, etc.

 

There are at least four telescopes being planned or built with primary mirrors in the thirty meter range. Two seperate square kilometer radio telescopes, a particle collider double the size of the one at Cern, and many other instruments. Scientific investigation continues at a blazing pace. This time in history is exciting because we continue to crash into the future, knowing there are surprises.

[Delta1212]

I think it's also important to define the scope of "wrongness."

 

The more science has advanced, and the more rigorous it has become over the last century or two, the less "wrong" the things that have been overturned are. People are matching theory to observable results rather than just coming up with ideas about how things might work.

 

If Newton said that the color of a bucket of paint was red, Einstein didn't later come along and say "No, it's blue." It would be more like he said "No, it's burgundy."

 

Science doesn't often overturn ideas, so much as determine their limits, increase their specificity and improve their accuracy.

 

That might result in a wildly different "story" about what is going on, but people have a bad habit of confusing the story about the theory with the actual theory itself. All scientific theories have an implied limit of "within the range for which we have data." And the solidly backed up theories of today are not likely to be overturned within that range. We may, however, discover that they are not generalizable in their current form beyond those limits if we run into data that doesn't fit with a simple extension of what we presently know once we begin probing those unexplored areas.

[Genecks]

What about Ockham's razor being applied to physicalism vs. psychologism?

 

I feel as though this has been covered before. I think it's presumed that Occam's razor can be "applied" to something. But that's just a belief.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Genecks

[Eise]

Has the Ockham's Razor never once been observed to be wrong? That would be interesting to know if that is truly the case.

 

I have no idea what "Ockham's Razor" being wrong could possibly mean. But much depends on what your understanding of O.R. is. In one of its formulations, I think it is not disputable at all:

 

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected

 

 

Maybe one should add 'competing hypotheses that explain the same set of facts'.

 

There are other formulations however, e.g.:

 

Of two explanations, the simplest tends to be the correct one.

 

'Tends'? Maybe. But surely not always. In that context I like to repeat what ajb already quoted:

 

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler

 

Original formulations of OR are quite ambiguous:

 

- Plurality must never be posited without necessity

- entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity

- It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer

 

To refute e.g. the multiverse theory beforehand on the basis of these formulations (so many universes!) would be unscientific, e.g. because we need less theoretical entities than in competing cosmologies. So OR does not help here.

 

OR is a good heuristic principle, but it is not a guarantee for selecting the best theory. But it is good to use as methodological principle, but not as an absolute sieve of wrong or correct theories.

[Robittybob1]

Eise - you seem to have answered the issue: "I have no idea what "Ockham's Razor" being wrong could possibly mean" yourself.

"Ockham's Razor" is not (used) as an absolute sieve of wrong or correct theories.

[PoPpAScience]

 

 

Has the Ockham's Razor never once been observed to be wrong? That would be interesting to know if that is truly the case.

 

I like Eise's quote. This is the way I've used Ockham's Razor in my contemplations over the decades.

Wrong? We'll only know when the Universe gives its final validation to our theories.

OR is a good heuristic principle, but it is not a guarantee for selecting the best theory. But it is good to use as methodological principle, but not as an absolute sieve of wrong or correct theories.

[Robittybob1]

 

I like Eise's quote. This is the way I've used Ockham's Razor in my contemplations over the decades.

Wrong? We'll only know when the Universe gives its final validation to our theories.

 

I have watched a couple of interviews with the brilliant mathematician/theoretical physicist Paul Dirac and he like to think of "mathematical beauty".

Which is some ways is like Ockham's Razor going for simplicity.

Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty YT

 

Adjunct Professor of Physics at Northeastern University in Boston, Graham Farmelo, on Paul Dirac and the Religion of Mathematical Beauty. Apart from Einstein, Paul Dirac was probably the greatest theoretical physicist of the 20th century. Dirac, co-inventor of quantum mechanics, is now best known for conceiving of anti-matter and also for his deeply eccentric behavior. For him, the most important attribute of a fundamental theory was its mathematical beauty, an idea that he said was "almost a religion" to him.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Robittybob1