Re: Misconceptions about Parsimony

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128486618.242036.142390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > > A little test for you, Ross. What's better:
> > > a) having no hypothesis at all;
> > > b) having a hypothesis that nobody can dispute?
> >
> > Unquestionably (a). If you think you have (b)
> > you are simply fooling yourself. It would be
> > worse than thinking you have a perpetual
> > motion machine. (b) is an oxymoron.
> >
> > No one should put forward an hypothesis
> > without saying how it could be disproved.
>
> Why in the world would somebody put together a hypothesis
> that they can disprove? Paul, I think you misread Popper.

As you wrote to Rick Wagler:
>>|> How about Newton, Copernicus, Einstein?
>>|> Were they kooks also?

They were not kooks, but (unlike you) were
desperately concerned about the mehods of
proof and disproof for their theories. They
proposed many experiments.

> > If it can be disproved, then it's not an hypothesis.

Sorry, bad typo. I meant to write:

"If it can't be disproved (i.e. in theory),
then it's not an hypothesis."


Paul.





.