Occam and his razor
Swiss mid-fourteenth century, a theologian and philosopher, William of Occam, formulated what could be call a principle, a principle of thought, which has passed into history of philosophy of science. It's called the "principle of economy of thought" or "principle of parsimony" or more commonly, "Ockham's razor." In its original formulation, this rule says "entia non sunt sine multiplicands necesitate" that those who know Latin, which translates as saying that "entities should not be multiplied if necessary."
has also been reformulated many times as "the simplest explanation is always the best" or "reasoning involving fewer steps are the most effective." How to define simplicity can be controversial, I believe that the intentions of this article, the most appropriate formulation is the original.
A simple idea is this principle, but it has and has had enormous implications. Actually, there is neither a beginning nor a scientific law, but it is a powerful tool, which guides the thought process can produce fruitful results. Under this principle, if we have 2 scientific models to explain a phenomenon, one that is more "simple" is worthy of further consideration. In fact, this is not true. As the scientific method requires, must be the experimental verification, the empirical verification, which must decide between the 2 models. But in many cases, the complexity of the phenomenon to be studied effectively prevents empirical testing, or the same experimental evidence can not decide between the different models.
is then shown the sharp knife to cut the cake ideas.
Throughout the history of science we have many examples in which the knife of Occam has made an appearance (often without the scientists had noticed it.)
The absence of the forces of inertia, the principle of special relativity proposed by Einstein, which led to the banishment of the idea of \u200b\u200bether, the unification of the concept of wave electromagnetic and the concept of particle in cuantón, in quantum mechanics, ... All are examples of moments in the history of science in which the knife has appeared doomed to prick.
When studies of evolutionary relationships between different groups of organisms using biochemical (as was done with modern man, using mitochondrial DNA) are produced phylogenetic trees (those graphs that relate to different groups) is the parsimony principle that governs the choice of the most significant trees. And is that among all possible paths, the evolution always chooses the shortest. Even
up science crystals we see the influence of the knife: the principle of economy applied to the crystal chemistry tells us that the number of constituent parts (atoms, bonds, ...) in a crystal tends to be minimal. The crystal structures tend to be simple and orderly.
There is a development of very sophisticated tool, prepared according to the theory of information. Step to try to explain. In science, the aim is to establish correlations between the phenomena observed (in the laboratory, in nature, ...) in order to develop a generalization that allows us to explain that fact that we observed, and at the same time, predict new ones.
however, agree with this, there may be many theories to explain the same.
The idea of \u200b\u200btheory is equivalent to that in information theory called "algorithm (an algorithm is a set of rules that allow us to solve a problem with a finite number of" steps "). Moreover, the amount of information of a message is measured in "bits" (a bit is the smallest unit of information, which contains the information necessary to decide between two alternatives, yes or no, 0 or 1 -). An algorithm will be more useful, the smaller number of bits it contains. This, applied science has come to mean as follows: to explain a set of facts, the algorithm - the theory - the least amount of information it contains, will be most effective (explains the same with less content).
A simple analogy would be this: if scientific theories were computer programs, and we had 3 "programs" to explain the same, we are left with the occupying less space on our computer.
This could be, therefore, a more elaborate formulation, or closer to a formalization of the famous principle.
far we have seen the importance that may come to mean to take into account the parsimony when formulating a scientific theory. It is understood that the razor can be considered as a utility knife. Without doubt, Occam was the "MacGiver" of thought.
The knife and pseudo
In pseudoscience, often gives the impression that they forget that weapon of thought that is parsimony.
When it comes to ethereal beings, aliens, or entities alleged, we are multiplying the number of entities.
is inherent human curiosity and the desire to know more, but these two issues in a lot of times we play very dirty tricks.
When we see something strange or something that catches the eye, immediately turn to ask ourselves what is the cause that produces it. But often our ignorance of the process, or simply that we were not aware of the circumstances in which it occurred, or if we speak of empirical experience, which does not adequately delimiter conditions of experience, all this determines that we could succeed him find an explanation. This gap, this gap is filled by the imagination, and that's when we resort to fanciful explanations or scientific theories.
I'll try to give an example which I think is enlightening: suppose that we see in the night sky with a strange light, makes movements that are implausible. To many, the ignorance will bring to mind the subject of flying saucers and alien visitation, and there are people who come to defend vehemently. But think. If someone were to ask, are you absolutely sure, 100%, that you saw was not a star? Are you segurazo it is no meteorological phenomenon, the type of ball lightning or the "fire of the Andes"? Can you say categorically that we saw in the sky is not due to any known cause, but your ignorance prevents you from understand? Are you able to say that there is no artifact of human origin type plane? In short, you have scientific or technical knowledge sufficient and necessary to affirm in an exhaustive manner that you saw, has extraterrestrial origin?
I guess the answer that anyone would give this hypothetical interlocutor is the same: no, I can not say one hundred percent.
is this gap, this gap in our knowledge, this gap which has to take the principle of Occam, beyond any belief or pseudo-scientific statement. In this example, we see the prince, who in his original formulation tells us that we should not multiply the number of bodies if necessary, is revealed in all its grandeur and portentous conceptual power.
The conservative explanation, really the only valid, though perhaps the least satisfactory, following our example, it states that would not know is that light. On the contrary, any theory that the light has its origin in extraterrestrial artifacts would violate the principle of economy, multiplying the number of entities.
This occurs at all levels, from ordinary life to scientific theories.
In our daily lives, very often we find events that raises concern us. Sometimes we seem to see that objects are not where we left, we see strange shadows Sometimes we come across strange coincidences ... There are things we all have passed, but ultimately reveal our ignorance, not only of a scientific or explanatory, but our ignorance of the facts themselves. Or perhaps we can certainly describe the circumstances in which we held that aroused curiosity? Can we say, for example, on air, if anyone else ...?
often happens that these facts are surprising to us because, in part, happen without us knowing it, immediately, without notice. This feature and prevents us from being able to specify the conditions of that time, we can not nor deny anything for sure, and this vagueness is the source of our confusion arises. This is where Occam tells us that we must be careful that we not increase the number of entities, using explanations with no basis, and for which we have only afimación as proof of our experience (engaging in circular reasoning.)
Whiting devouring its tail
A level of "grand theories" pseudoscientific, Occam has leeway to inflict fatal stab with his knife.
And that is the essential feature of these theories is, so to speak, the number of entities increase exponentially.
If we make a logical level analysis of these theories see acting as the medieval scholastic philosophers called a "begging." This with less arrogance, in circular reasoning.
to see if I present my ideas in a clear way.
Suppose we observe a curious phenomenon, apparently inexplicable. Scholars of the pseudo quickly propose a dramatic explanation.
But if we ask that evidence presented in favor of this explanation, we realize that these are reduced essentially to explain the phenomenon since the beginning of the chain. That is, we are including in order to explain in the explanation.
is seen more clearly in dialogue form:
- What do you explain?
-
The paranormal phenomenon - what explanation you give?
-A
paranormal explanation - What tests to show that explanation?
"The paranormal phenomenon from the beginning.
defined in the definition. Pseudo-scientific version of the poor dog, desperate chases his tail.
This form of reasoning is not valid formally speaking. It is a form of reasoning inconsistent from a logical standpoint, and as such should not be considered in science nor in any system of thought lovers. To be worthy of being taken into care, the explanation we give to the phenomenon has to have additional independent verification of the event under study.
We will proceed to discuss a few specific cases.
Let's start has been been called phenomenon of "Bélmez faces." In the 70
in an Andalusian town house Bélmez de la Moraleda, began to emerge on the wall stains, stains that had apparently shaped faces. The explanation given from the realm of the paranormal was that these faces were produced by entities called "beyond", manifested in this way.
I will move on to analyze the thought process followed in these theories. First, note that I will not discuss the veracity of the premises, ie I will not comment on whether the faces are or are not such expensive, as it would to great length and exceeds the goals I I have raised in this article.
part of a sentence: we have a face-shaped spots on the wall of the house, and apparently did not respond to anything known. What explanation do we give? The faces are manifestations of disembodied. What evidence or clues were provided in favor of this theory? The very expensive, and savings of EVP. Which to explain the resort faces to faces, is a perfect example of circular reasoning, and reveals the weakness of this reasoning.
the EVP testing requires a little explanation. The EVP is a matter, at least, very controversial. If starting as an argument for a theory employ weak and controversial evidence, the conclusions they draw are therefore weak and controversial at par.
Many times since the area is said to be skeptical explanations require arguments amazing just amazing. We can not support a hypothesis spectacular weak evidence, for then the consistency will be as weak as test. Resort to a very good example: in a room is 3 people, and is killed. Would it make sense that the trial is offered as evidence the testimony of one blaming the other?
something similar happens here.
Another case might be to discuss UFOs (understood as all the phenomenology related to the ET hypothesis). From the UFO cases are often reported, it seems, of phenomena in the sky difficult to explain. Let's follow the same steps as before. What explanation do we give? Artifacts are piloted by extraterrestrials. What evidence do we have to say this? The lights of heaven. Whiting that
biting its tail, obvious.
The same is happening in these two cases, it happens in our daily lives, when we witness things that we can not explain. Quickly, because we are constantly seeing on television and radio, or because we heard similar testimonies from people you know, we use explanations of the same nature as the previous.
is important not to get carried away, and we are able to realize how wrong we are when we proceed in this way. I have tried to say that this way of thinking represents a logical fallacy, and that such reasoning must be avoided in any form of knowledge.
The critical spirit the method and the economy of thought must not be forgotten in such cases.
EPILOGUE: Curiosity and its collateral damage
is well worth the curious at what surrounds us, and wanting to find an explanation for everything we observe. That ennobles our character and makes us human. But this insatiable desire to want to see more can not blind us and lead us into logical traps, or get carried away with inconsistent ideas formulated by others, which are very ornate and attractive result. It is better to acknowledge ignorance, or having to give an explanation, even if it represents a dissatisfaction that use amazing explanations devoid of method or formal structure, the only thing where we are, is our worst perception of natural events.
0 comments:
Post a Comment