Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irfilul wrote

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

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