Re: Ockham o Occam

From: Multivac85 <multivac85_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:08:22 -0700 (PDT)

On 3 Giu, 23:55, Soviet_Mario <Soviet.Ma..._at_CCCP.MIR> wrote:
> Scusatemi, si fa spesso parlare del suo Rasoio.
> Ma si sono verificate situazioni in cui la soluzione pi�
> semplice ad un qualche problema si � poi rivelata errata, ed
> una pi� complessa quella vera (tra due alternative in
> apparenza entrambe compatibili) ?

leggendo qui, pare proprio di s�:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Science_and_the_scientific_method

"However, on many occasions Occam's razor has stifled or delayed
scientific progress.[13] For example, appeals to simplicity were used
to deny the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental
drift, and reverse transcriptase. It originally rejected DNA as the
carrier of genetic information in favor of proteins, since proteins
provided the simpler explanation. Theories that reach far beyond the
available data are rare, but general relativity provides one example."

>
> Detto diversamente, si tratta solo di un consiglio di
> massima, di buon senso, da intendere in senso statistico, o
> di un vero e proprio teorema inviolabile ?
> Se � la seconda, da cosa discende ?
>

Mi sembra di comprendere che si tratti solo di una "linea guida" un
"consiglio" che per� non dovrebbe essere assolutizzato (come gi� fatto
notare, peraltro, � tutt'altro che facile il compito di definire la
"semplicit�) altrimenti si rischia di cadere in errori notevoli, cito
sempre il link di wikipedia di sopra:

There are many examples where Occam's razor would have picked the
wrong theory given the available data. Simplicity principles are
useful philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely theory
from among several possibilities that are each consistent with
available data. A single instance of Occam's razor picking a wrong
theory falsifies the razor as a general principle [12]
If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same testable
predictions, they are equivalent and there is no need for parsimony to
choose one that is preferred. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian, and
Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no
interest in using Occam's razor to say the other two are wrong.
Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles to arbitrate
between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science
often does not demand arbitration or selection criteria between models
which make the same testable predictions.[12]
Michael Lee and others[37] provide cases where a parsimonious approach
does not guarantee a correct conclusion and, if based on incorrect
working hypotheses or interpretations of incomplete data, may even
strongly support a false conclusion. He warns "When parsimony ceases
to be a guideline and is instead elevated to an ex cathedra
pronouncement, parsimony analysis ceases to be science."

Insomma, tale principio guida, nella scienza, sebbene possa essere
utile, � bene usarlo senza estremizzazioni, magari chi � pi� addentro
alle pratiche delle scienze pu� darti dettagli in pi� al riguardo.

Ciao.
Received on Wed Jun 06 2012 - 22:08:22 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Nov 08 2024 - 05:10:11 CET