Switch to full style
Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.
Post a reply

par'SIMONY.

Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:34 am

par'SIMONY!
Its sometimes amaizingly intuitive to accept the less stepped process to be more likely WHEN NO BIAS IS PROVIDED LOGICALLY , n this is what we do when we accept to apply parsimony...
we accept the hypothesis with minimum explanations [&/steps?] to be more likely or true!


now when we accept the hypothesis with less explanations required, how we define less explanations or how extent of explanations required? it is differing person to person, may be many of us wd feel the same hypotheisi to be holding the parsimoniac...
i think it is the developement and observation of nature, might be subconscious or conscious, that makes us feel some grp of things more 'natural' or 'feasible'...so we be comfortable with it, n then we wd be accepting it untill we get an objection from an experiment i.e. are provided with a bias logical! might be this 'image' of nature in our minds is realistic and thus more likely to be true!
what d'ya think?

& Are there high-risk situations where scientist n ppl avoid use parsimony???

Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:26 pm

parsimony means Occam's raisor, possibly the only scientific principle that can be applied almost anywhere.
Parsimony doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is always true, it just means that the simplest explanation is true most of the time. in situations where it is possible to determin it experimentally(though i can't think of any) it's better to do so.

Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:28 am

Er.....what is parsimony ?

Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:37 am

well, didn't i explain it in my above post? PS: moved to general discussion, since it has to do with bio a little...

Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:53 pm

It turns out that Occam's Razor was empirically tested back in the 90's, and although the "simplest explanation" (A very tricky thing to define and determine if you think about it) was on average more likely than any one of the other explanations, it was only the right explanation in the low-to-mid 40 percentiles. So the simplest isn't the right one most of the time, but it is the likeliest one on the list.

Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:15 pm

Ockham's Razor doesn't specify the "simplest explanation", in his own words: "nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident or known by experience" and a common paraphrase: "don't multiply entities beyond necessity".

Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:56 pm

All of which, translated to standard usage, becomes the principle everybody's talking about here.
Post a reply