Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Complex explanations are false?

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 May 2010, 2:00 am

Throughout my teens years, when my stepdad was dictator, I was often accused of some random thing or another and needed to supply a simple explanation as to why the accusation is false. Any "unnecessary baggage" to any refutation, and Gary assumed his correctness. Similarly, if some random mechanical component of an appliance malfunctioned and if I ever said anything about it, what I said had to be concise or else I would be called an idiot or some other insult by implication or explicitly at times, or just thrown out of the house until my stepdad cooled off from getting angry at having to listen to me for longer than his attention span.

I consider that the complexity of an explanation has little relevance to the truth or falsity of the explanation. Certainly, with human factors, it can be that a person is fabricating a story as they speak, but it can also be that the person has a difficulty in expressing themselves suddenly or otherwise has difficulty in composition. Some people may be making up false data to add to their story, and yet others just have a difficulty in succinctly speaking out what is requested of them.

In regard to philosophy, there are things such as Occam's Razor which people seem to use mainly as a rhetorical tool rather than a logical one, primarily when they prune their arguments ad hoc additions yet list as many as possible of the opponents' and then claim that their position has more validity because it is simpler. Certainly, this would work against the Ptolemaic model with the epicycles in favor of Kepler's Laws, but if you were to try to explain the mathematics of ellipses and other conic sections to someone who hasn't even taken Algebra or Geometry they would just get frustrated because they lack, at that time, the prerequisite aspects of knowledge in order to have understanding of the mathematics of either planetary motion model.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 May 2010, 3:48 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Throughout my teens years, when my stepdad was dictator, I was often accused of some random thing or another and needed to supply a simple explanation as to why the accusation is false. Any "unnecessary baggage" to any refutation, and Gary assumed his correctness. Similarly, if some random mechanical component of an appliance malfunctioned and if I ever said anything about it, what I said had to be concise or else I would be called an idiot or some other insult by implication or explicitly at times, or just thrown out of the house until my stepdad cooled off from getting angry at having to listen to me for longer than his attention span.

I consider that the complexity of an explanation has little relevance to the truth or falsity of the explanation. Certainly, with human factors, it can be that a person is fabricating a story as they speak, but it can also be that the person has a difficulty in expressing themselves suddenly or otherwise has difficulty in composition. Some people may be making up false data to add to their story, and yet others just have a difficulty in succinctly speaking out what is requested of them.

In regard to philosophy, there are things such as Occam's Razor which people seem to use mainly as a rhetorical tool rather than a logical one, primarily when they prune their arguments ad hoc additions yet list as many as possible of the opponents' and then claim that their position has more validity because it is simpler. Certainly, this would work against the Ptolemaic model with the epicycles in favor of Kepler's Laws, but if you were to try to explain the mathematics of ellipses and other conic sections to someone who hasn't even taken Algebra or Geometry they would just get frustrated because they lack, at that time, the prerequisite aspects of knowledge in order to have understanding of the mathematics of either planetary motion model.


The primary figure of merit for a theory is adequacy of description of the phenomena or explanation of the phenomena. Only when there is a near equality of adequacy does one choose the simpler theory. Simplicity is not the chief virtue of theory, empirical correctness is.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 May 2010, 4:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Throughout my teens years, when my stepdad was dictator, I was often accused of some random thing or another and needed to supply a simple explanation as to why the accusation is false. Any "unnecessary baggage" to any refutation, and Gary assumed his correctness. Similarly, if some random mechanical component of an appliance malfunctioned and if I ever said anything about it, what I said had to be concise or else I would be called an idiot or some other insult by implication or explicitly at times, or just thrown out of the house until my stepdad cooled off from getting angry at having to listen to me for longer than his attention span.

I consider that the complexity of an explanation has little relevance to the truth or falsity of the explanation. Certainly, with human factors, it can be that a person is fabricating a story as they speak, but it can also be that the person has a difficulty in expressing themselves suddenly or otherwise has difficulty in composition. Some people may be making up false data to add to their story, and yet others just have a difficulty in succinctly speaking out what is requested of them.

In regard to philosophy, there are things such as Occam's Razor which people seem to use mainly as a rhetorical tool rather than a logical one, primarily when they prune their arguments ad hoc additions yet list as many as possible of the opponents' and then claim that their position has more validity because it is simpler. Certainly, this would work against the Ptolemaic model with the epicycles in favor of Kepler's Laws, but if you were to try to explain the mathematics of ellipses and other conic sections to someone who hasn't even taken Algebra or Geometry they would just get frustrated because they lack, at that time, the prerequisite aspects of knowledge in order to have understanding of the mathematics of either planetary motion model.


The primary figure of merit for a theory is adequacy of description of the phenomena or explanation of the phenomena. Only when there is a near equality of adequacy does one choose the simpler theory. Simplicity is not the chief virtue of theory, empirical correctness is.

ruveyn


Also, since we're dealing with humans here and not robots, there is also the matter of how adequate the description or explanation is for the purpose of which humans wish to obtain it. The Ptolemaic model lasted for so long because it was adequate for the needs of those who used it, such as astrologers and sailors. However, the Ptolemaic model is incorrect, although it did describe the motion of the planets and stars to the degree needed during its time of usage. In that sense, even the Ptolemaic cosmological model had merit. However, even though it could be considered to have had merit, it was still wrong.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 May 2010, 4:29 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Also, since we're dealing with humans here and not robots, there is also the matter of how adequate the description or explanation is for the purpose of which humans wish to obtain it. The Ptolemaic model lasted for so long because it was adequate for the needs of those who used it, such as astrologers and sailors. However, the Ptolemaic model is incorrect, although it did describe the motion of the planets and stars to the degree needed during its time of usage. In that sense, even the Ptolemaic cosmological model had merit. However, even though it could be considered to have had merit, it was still wrong.


A theory which is wrong (in some cases) but useful, is a heuristic. Classical Mechanics along with Classical Electrodynamics is inadequate to describe the world at the sub-atomic level is still good for making bridges. It has been demoted from a fundamental theory of the world to a heuristic. Newton's Law of Gravitation is a heuristic. It is good for short trips in space. It is inadequate for very strong gravitational fields. Very likely, the General Theory of Relativity is also wrong, but less so than the classical theory.

It still pays to study classical mechanics since many of the mathematical methods used are also useful for quantum mechanics. The principle of stationary variation (known as the misnomer - the principle of least action) is still as good as it ever was.

ruveyn



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

28 May 2010, 12:09 pm

Occam's razor is about the assumptions made in an explanation, not about the length of an explanation. What you're talking about, as you said, is a defense mechanism to protect the ego of a person with a short attention span.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 May 2010, 12:24 pm

Obres wrote:
Occam's razor is about the assumptions made in an explanation, not about the length of an explanation. What you're talking about, as you said, is a defense mechanism to protect the ego of a person with a short attention span.


Simplicity is not the hallmark of a correct theory of the physical world. Agreement with observed fact is. Simplicity is preferred when all other matters are addressed adequately. It is just possible that the world is a non-simple messy place and requires none simple messy theories to explain or describe it.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 May 2010, 12:41 pm

Obres wrote:
Occam's razor is about the assumptions made in an explanation, not about the length of an explanation. What you're talking about, as you said, is a defense mechanism to protect the ego of a person with a short attention span.


I think you're especially right about the second part.