Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_ireair5 wrote

Reply to comment by Capital_Net_6438 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 03, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate the feedback.

I do not mean 'false' when I say 'wrong'. A better interpretation would be 'not true' which does not necessarily mean false. 'Wrong' would include half-truths, part-lies, and the like which I wouldn't necessarily consider false. However they are not true or correct so therefore I use the word wrong.

I think there is some confusion on the application of the razor, and what it does and does not entail. I'll make an example:

Say I studied birds as my profession. Say I found a new species of bird and developed a theory explaining its behaviour. For thirty years I wrote books, gave lectures, and made publications promoting my theory. However, after thirty years, a study comes out with new evidence that completely debunks my theory. I feel embarrassed for spending thirty years of my academic life promoting a theory that ended up wrong (not true).

In this example, I did not use the razor. What I should've done is consider if there was a possibility that my theory was wrong and then analyze that possibility. I could've discovered that there are holes in my theory and that it could be wrong. That way, instead of spending decades promoting a wrong theory, I could've readjusted my understanding earlier and found what was true earlier.

In this example, something could be seen as true if by denying it one would look like they are denying the entire understanding of the behaviour of this bird.

This razor could be useful in debunking conspiracy theories. Often in conspiracy theories, they rely on possibilities of malevolence. However, if you analyze the possibility, you will find that the possibility of non-malevolence being much more likely and fundamental to what we know to be true about a certain person's behavior.

Thank you for your comments and feel free to ask me any questions.

2

Capital_Net_6438 t1_ireeg3g wrote

I'm not sure what the bird professor did wrong. Did he ignore evidence he should've paid attention to? If he checked what he was supposed to check, then it seems like he didn't do anything wrong. If it turns out his theory is not true, them's the breaks, right? Such is the fate of man that our theorizing is not foolproof.

1

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irfilul wrote

The bird professor did not consider possibilities of his theory being wrong. He checked all of the evidence that he thought of checking, but since he was unaware of the possibility of contrary evidence, he did not check that evidence. Also, while no theory is foolproof, some theories ended up fundamental to our understanding of the universe around us. Two important and fundamental theories that come to mind is the theory of evolution and the theory of heliocentrism. These fundamental theories are seen as true and are important to our understanding of the universe around. Theorists have considered opposing theories for centuries, yet these fundamental theories have stood the test of time as more and more evidence comes in their favor. This is something that the bird professor should’ve done, and this is what this razor advocates for.

2

Capital_Net_6438 t1_irfjjc2 wrote

Checking all the evidence you think of checking could be ok or it could be totally inadequate. Really depends, right?

2

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irfk37g wrote

Maybe. All I am pointing out is that all of the evidence that you think of checking is not all of the evidence out there. Science often solves this problem with peer review, but it is not the same as analysing as many possible evidences (even once you don’t normally think of) to try to find out if the theory or assertion is wrong.

2

[deleted] t1_irk3pug wrote

[deleted]

3

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irkliia wrote

Thank you for your comment!

While it is true that the academic world has a lot of evidence behind their studies, this razor would be in better use for theorists and those who analyse the studies, not necessarily those who make the studies.

On the paradox, you are correct that we should not simply accept the new study. The razor should apply to them as well. Whatever theory or assertion, it should be able to explain more than any other theory or assertion to be considered more true. In this case, the new theory provided contrary evidence that the old theory could not explain away. Due to the new theory accurately explaining more than the old theory, the old theory should be done away. In an ideal world, a purely true theory would be able to explain everything and can answer all contrary evidence, but such a theory of everything everywhere does not exist for the universe around us.

I also would like to point out that it is unlikely for one study to completely dispel a decades-old theory like in the example given. In real life, it would take numerous years and many studies and assertions to overthrow a previous theory. I just simplify it for the sake of argument to show the importance of considering if there could be possible contrary evidence and how the razor could fix that problem.

Thank you and feel free to ask any questions.

Edit: Also, it is true that many theorists are very careful about their theories. That would just mean that they use the razor without having a name to it. I am only formalising a razor that people may already use to come up with their ideas.

3