Given what you know about criteria for theory choice in science, such as predictive power, mechanism, fruitfulness, simplicity, and coherence, is there anything other than evidence that scientists use in determining whether to accept a theory? Should there be?
Are simpler theories more likely to be true? Is Ockham’s Razor always a good rule of scientific reasoning?
well i dont think that the scientific theory should have another theory. they have enough people to get there opionos and they dont need any more
There are at any rate twelve significant temperances of good speculations: evidential precision, causal sufficiency, illustrative profundity, inside consistency, inward soundness, widespread intelligibility, excellence, straightforwardness, unification, strength, productivity, and materialness. These excellencies are best grouped into four classes: evidential, coherential, tasteful, and diachronic. Every ethicalness class contains at any rate three excellencies that consecutively follow a rehashing example of dynamic divulgence and extension. Systematizing the hypothetical ethics as such explains every goodness and recommends how they may have an organized and combined job in principle development and assessment over the controls—with remittance for discipline explicit alteration. A casual and adaptable rationale of hypothesis decision is really taking shape here. Evidential exactness (experimental fit), as indicated by my systematization, is certifiably not a to a great extent separated quality of good speculations, as certain (pragmatists and antirealists) have portrayed it. Or maybe, it bears multifaceted connections, establishing huge epistemic ensnarements, with other hypothetical excellencies.
In general the simpler theories are more likely to be true, however that doesn’t make them necessarily true.
The criteria for theory choice are incredibly important for scientists to determine whether a theory is acceptable. Evidence is the corner stone in determining whether to accept a theory so, there should be no other way. I am a little confuse about your post for scientific method base on fact not on people’s opinions.
I agree with your take on evidence.
- According to me scientific theories are acceptable only if they support logic and have evidence. And that should be ultimate.
- It depends on theory to theory and person to person. For example: The transition of day and night is linked to the rotation of earth. Its has a simpler scientific theory. But theory of relativity is a complex one to understand.
I think all of those criteria are really evidence in one way or another. Being able to use a theory to predict an unknown outcome is evidence. Just like if it couldn’t predict it would also be evidence. I think evidence is the foundation we have to build off of but deciding which theory is better is where you add in things like Ockham’s Razor. It’s not always true, but it often is.