Maybe you could use my favorite, as well:
Hanlon’s razor
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
1 Like
The advantage of Hanion’s razor is you can politely signal your verdict simply by preceding whatever criticism you have with “Bless his little heart”.
1 Like
Here is an early usage of the term, in case you were wondering:
2 Likes
I wasn’t, but thanks for the history lesson.
Next issue?
Thanks Terry.
May I ask what is the source of this document? Who are the authors and where did you get it?
I disagree that getting behind this to the original sources and theoretical discussion will bear no fruit. The devil is in the detail so to speak. Also, I have learned from experience that many such presentations of flaws in science from within religious circles are often very dubious. That is not to say it is so in this case, but I want to do my due diligence just the same.
So if you could answer the questions above I will research this further. I don’t think it impacts the epistemically discussion but I am interested in the science anyway.
Yes, but so much better!!!
I am a persistent critic of Ockham’s razor. It is accuracy not simplicity which decides one theory over another. There is nothing simple about Quantum Field Theory. And if two theories are really equally accurate, then we keep both as alternate ways of looking at the same things because this has frequently proven extremely useful in solving difficult problems.
But parsimony? i.e. the economy of work and effort? Absolutely!!! Finding easier ways to do things is essential to the progress of science. Math in particular makes laziness into a high virtue. Doing things an easier way is what enables you to tackle harder and more difficult problems.
1 Like
I am the source of the document: I am it’s author. It is a slight revision of the document posted in images in this thread previously.
You asked for lines to help make the meaning of my diagrams clear. I added lines of dashes and little high-lighted-in-yellow boxes and, for my effort, you appear bound and determined to dismiss it (a) for having been posted “in a religious circle” and/or (b) failing to have a lawful, reputable, and credible author. Suit yourself.
I’m with you on this, Mitchell. Parsimony is a desirable quality for a theory but not when what is being explained just is complex. Occam’s razor is cited way too often when doing so will fit ones own position.
Terry, no insult was intended and I actually meant to thank you for the additional effort. After a second work through, I realised my own stupidity in not noticing that the second set of triplets had the lengths reversed. Please forgive my clumsiness there.
Just because the document has been produced by a Christian has no bearing on whether it is correct. It’s correctness though cannot be assumed by me, regardless of authorship. As with all matters of science, what matters is the evidence and the theory that attempts to explain it. Relying only on one person’s diagrammatic representation of an area that you claim is contentious, with potentially significant implications for the viability of both ST and NLR, would be way to casual an approach for me to take in response to your point.
It would be useful for me to know your scientific background though, so I can target my responses to you at the appropriate level. I myself, completed a double degree in engineering and computer science, then a masters in material’s science for manufacturing. I started a degree in genomics but could not continue due to work commitments. I have a life long interest in science, in particular, biology, evolution, theory of information, physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence, complex dynamical systems theory and genetics. I am also fairly strong in mathematics. I read philosophy for twenty years in my youth but in the last 20 years have had little time to spend on anything but work, so I am dusting off the cobwebs here…!
As this is not directly related to the thread topic, I would be happy to tackle this whole thing in more depth one one on or on another thread if it looks like becoming a major discussion.
Lastly, this s is not personal Terry, and I do appreciate your efforts, however I always do my own research drawn from original sources and accompanying explanatory references. I will follow up and get back to you.
1 Like
None taken.
Easily and quickly done. The mistake is an easy one to make.
For the record, I am an unabashed, baptized and confirmed Anti-relativist and a veteran of the War between Relativists and Anti-relativists that filled Physics forums in the years leading up to the 100th anniversary of the publication of Einstein’s paper: “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905). Initially, I was curious. My curiosity turned into intrigued fascination over the inability of bonafide, competent Relativists, Pseudo-relativists, and Wanna-be Relativists to satisfy my curiosity. My intrigued fascination turned to permanent incredulity when I encountered the “Paradox of the Light Spheres”.
My paper, such as it is, is the product of my own effort to briefly present my view of a crucial distinction between SR and NLR. Because my current mathematical skills tend to max out at the Beginning/Intermediate Algebra level and because I prefer diagrams over mathematical calculations, I settled on diagramming the distinction. I dare to imagine that my diagrams would suffice for an entry-level presentation to 6th-8th grade students.
It’s negligible, although I’ve been known to microwave a bag of popcorn without burning it more often than not. During my younger days, I got my B.A. in Accounting and served a good number of years as an Internal Revenue Agent in the IRS.
Marshall, What a great concise statement full of truth: “Limiting knowledge to what can be demonstrated ultimately reduces knowledge to nothing…” AIG now thinks the speed of light used to go more than 2 million times faster than it goes now (got here from distant stars in 6,000 years instead of 13.6 billion). It’s like; Wouldn’t Einstein, Hawking, Michio Kaku, Hugh Ross and/or Carl Sagan know it if the speed of light ever went even just twice as fast as now, let alone 2 million times faster?
It seems that to get around this takes some prevarication:
Yes I went back and read what Marshall posted. He basically stated the fundamental inconsistency which I stumbled upon later on in the thread. Without some intermediate basis for knowledge then you end up with no way to know that something is demonstrable in the first place.
Or… to put it a slightly different way. It is a basic fact that our immediate experience of reality is fundamentally subjective. The objective only exists as an abstraction – something we construct out of our subjective experiences. Thus to deny the validity of the subjective is to yank the rug out from the objective as well.
So the most that us science types can do is to claim for objective knowledge (that which can be demonstrated) the epistemological superiority which consists of a reasonable expectation that others should agree – accepting that diversity will be an inherent part of subjective knowledge (that which comes from personal experience). I guess I can understand this impulse to limit knowledge to something that can exclude diversity (from popular rhetoric that TRUTH must be singular) – but being inextricably connected to intolerance, it is a boorish impulse we need to resist.
1 Like
We must look for the likely and unlikely. It is highly unlikely that the speed of light has ever been 2 million times faster than it travels now. It’s very likely that the Universe is billions of years old.
1 Like
Occam’s razor is perfect in matters of rationality. Why and how would it be fallaciously used to attempt to reduce truly irreducible complexity, like particle physics?
As for NLR vs SR, Occam’s razor is just fine.
Previously, Terry said: Both SR and NLR affirm length contraction. Unfortunately, what you (@T_aquaticus) do not seem to be aware of is that SR’s length contraction and NLR’s length contraction are NOT the same.
In the following Hypothetical Experiement, I describe a thought-experiment from an NLR point-of-view. Perhaps you’d like to consult @mitchellmckain and ask him if NLR’s length contraction and SR’s length contraction differ and how they differ?
As a rule of thumb for selecting the most likely hypotheses to investigate, it’s fine. As rationale for a final conclusion (as I often find it used online) it is insufficient.
Well yeah, can you cite an example?