tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post6175105005768766324..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Ahistorical Physicsgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-11186648271832437962007-06-14T12:22:00.000-04:002007-06-14T12:22:00.000-04:00"It would be a good question to put to the scienti..."It would be a good question to put to the scientist for what other reason besides beauty and coherence should a theory be accepted."<BR/><BR/>He wants observational confirmation and simplicity, period. Kuhn and Feyerabend pretty much blew up the idea that these are enough. For instance, scientists often must choose between theory X, which is simple in respect A and complex in respect B, and theory Y, which is simple in respect B and complex in Y. In that case, "Choose the simpler theory" isn't going to help much.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-88817086333208039382007-06-14T04:50:00.000-04:002007-06-14T04:50:00.000-04:00...even if *somewhat*......even if *somewhat*...John Goeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206464455510064541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-41926652010690066612007-06-14T04:49:00.000-04:002007-06-14T04:49:00.000-04:00Beauty, within the limits of physical soundness, m...Beauty, within the limits of physical soundness, may in some sense be the criteria most physicists use today, even if someone inconsistently. Ockham's Razor is a demand for simplicity in composition, Chatton's anti-razor (seldom formally recognizes, but implicitly so in the discovery of new objects and phenomena) is a demand for completeness and depth of vision, etc, etc.<BR/><BR/>It would be a good question to put to the scientist for what other reason besides beauty and coherence should a theory be accepted.John Goeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206464455510064541noreply@blogger.com