SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-complete-and-simple-is-your-answer? dept.
As science advances, does Ockham’s Razor still apply?:
William of Ockham is the medieval philosopher who gave us what is perhaps the world's only metaphysical knife. Raised by Franciscan friars and educated at Oxford in the late 13th century, he focused his energies on what can only be described as esoterica, topics spanning theology and politics. In service of this occupation, he clashed with Pope John XXII and was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.
Ockham's exploration of the philosophical concept of nominalism and his preference for parsimony in logical arguments gave rise to the concept of Ockham's Razor (sometimes spelled "Occam"). Stated plainly, the Razor asserts that if two models equally explain a scenario, the simpler of the two is more likely.
[...] In his book "The Demon-Haunted World," the late Carl Sagan introduces a thought experiment of a dragon in his garage. When Sagan convinces someone to come look at the dragon, the visitor opens the garage door and finds nothing there. Sagan then counters that "she's an invisible dragon," and, naturally, cannot be seen.
[...] Ironically the preservation of Ockham's Razor over the centuries may be due to its own internal simplicity. Simply by uttering the phrase "Ockham's Razor," it is possible to challenge everything from an interpretation of a new physics experiment, to the explanation of a social movement, to a possible account for a crime scene. The Razor has broad utility in pushing back against explanations that appear to be overly complicated or continue to amend their original thesis by layering secondary and contingent explanations in response to new challenges.
Yet in science, the Razor is just one concept that researchers might use in considering a theory. How predictive is the theory? Is it falsifiable? How well does it align with other explanations that we believe are correct? How internally consistent is it? These and many more questions all are part of the discourse of science. Ockham's Razor in and of itself is not the sole criterion for finding the truth — and applying the Razor outside of the narrow realm of statistical model selection is not so simple.
[...] Though Okham's Razor may not be well suited to all types of knowledge, at the boundaries of scientific knowledge it offers a rubric to test hypotheses. The Razor continues to demonstrate utility to whittle down chaff at the margins. It would be convenient if the Razor alone was sufficient to settle all scientific debate. But the world, it turns out, is not so parsimonious.
Let's revisit the dragon in the garage. Imagine you are told that this invisible dragon can induce fatal burns without the heat and smoke of fire. You investigate further and conclude that since there is no evidence of a beast, neither the dragon nor its deadly force can exist. Hours later, you succumb to radiation burns from your exposure in the garage.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KilroySmith on Monday June 14 2021, @07:05PM (5 children)
>>> Virus of the type being manipulated in a virus research lab infects people only miles from it.
Well, replace "manipulated" with "studied", and you're probably spot-on.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14 2021, @08:50PM (4 children)
No, it was literally being manipulated. This is one of the big issues. The Wuhan lab was, undoubtedly, engaged in Gain of Function [wikipedia.org] research on bat derived coronaviruses. That funding for that research is where things get fun, but that's another [even more sordid] story.
The nominal purpose of GoF research is to see what might happen if a virus, through natural evolutionary mutation, was made more contagious or more deadly, and how we might contain such a threat. Basically trying to stay one step ahead of threats. The obvious problems are that this is extremely dangerous stuff where something far worse than COVID could have been unleashed. For instance, while smallpox has been eliminated - multiple countries still have live samples of it. And smallpox is something we can't even imagine now a days - it had a mortality rate of around 30% - killing the young and healthy just as easily as the elderly and infirm. I'm not implying there is GoF being carried out on smallpox - only that COVID is relatively mild compared to what GoF research could potentially yield.
And of course there's always the issue that every country studying these viruses is also considering the possibility of weaponization. It's just not a great field.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14 2021, @09:10PM (3 children)
> Wuhan lab was, undoubtedly
BZZZT. Try again.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 14 2021, @09:54PM
Pffft! [archive.is]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @02:00AM (1 child)
It's trivial to find
- grant applications for doing GoF there.
- the awarded grants for doing GoF there
- Scientists talking about the GoF being done there
- Scientists publishing papers on the GoF being done there
Quite why you see layer upon layer of fossils and conclude some absurd spontanious creation is alas no longer an interesting pathology, as we're quite familiar with it from related examples.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15 2021, @04:03PM
Teach the controversy. Why do you hate America?