Academy Home | Student Dashboard

PHIL102: Scientific Theories

  1. 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?

  2. Are simpler theories more likely to be true? Is Ockham’s Razor always a good rule of scientific reasoning?

3 Likes

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

3 Likes

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.

4 Likes

Good explained

2 Likes

In general the simpler theories are more likely to be true, however that doesn’t make them necessarily true.

4 Likes

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.

4 Likes

I agree with your take on evidence.

2 Likes

Liked it.

2 Likes

Well explained

2 Likes
  1. According to me scientific theories are acceptable only if they support logic and have evidence. And that should be ultimate.
  2. 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.
1 Like

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.

1 Like

it cannot be true or likely to be true because it is simple. at some point Ockham’s Razor is ok.

1 Like

on point

1 Like

This would be difficult to determine as science as a general rule is about predicting as well as observable phenomenon.
Ockham’s Razor has, ironically been proven time and again as a stop gap.

1 Like

True, that Ockham’s Razor is not always true, or science would be full of goblins and ghosts to explain physics ,chemistry and almost all branches of science.

1 Like

Logic and evidence get very complicated very quickly, can Ockham’s Razor shorten up these theories to a short cut? I don’t think so either, so no it wouldn’t be the best explanation. Some theories a re so complicated that it takes years of study to make them as short and to the point as possible, maybe this is Ockham’s Razor. The theory does not state that it has to be less than 20 textbooks to simplify it.

1 Like

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.

1 Like
  1. Every theory to be scientific, need to be testable. It must put forward ways by which it can falsify (if it is).
  2. Scientific theories are always made attractive by its simplicity and understandability. It will never involve verbal jugglery while describing natural phenomenon. Its obvious because we humans rely on science to simplify and understand complex natural phenomenon. I think its not because simpler one are more truthful, but because science is to identify complex ones in simple terms we can see simpler theories lot. And scientists always do so as science is to do so.
    Hence its always good to ‘use’ Ockham’s Razor as it makes science more handsome.
1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like