I answered a questions a few days ago:
>What is the law of parsimony?
I (somewhat hastily) constructed the following response:
"The parsimony principle is basic to all science and tells us to choose the simplest scientific explanation that fits (all) the observed evidence.
Let's do a simple example. Imagine that you observed James bringing an apple to school. At lunch, you saw James eating an apple. You would concluded, based on parsimony, that James was eating the apple he brought to school. This is the simplest explanation that accounts for the observations.
You should not, however, conclude that James lost the apple he brought to school in second period, traded his bag of chips for an apple with another student, and was eating the other student's apple during lunch. This explanation is unnecessarily complex, and does not follow the principles of parsimony."
Now, I do admit that the example could have been chosen better... but this answer was given 3 thumbs down. I must have gone wrong somewhere else. Can someone point out the flaws in the answer, and how I could improve upon it?
>What is the law of parsimony?
I (somewhat hastily) constructed the following response:
"The parsimony principle is basic to all science and tells us to choose the simplest scientific explanation that fits (all) the observed evidence.
Let's do a simple example. Imagine that you observed James bringing an apple to school. At lunch, you saw James eating an apple. You would concluded, based on parsimony, that James was eating the apple he brought to school. This is the simplest explanation that accounts for the observations.
You should not, however, conclude that James lost the apple he brought to school in second period, traded his bag of chips for an apple with another student, and was eating the other student's apple during lunch. This explanation is unnecessarily complex, and does not follow the principles of parsimony."
Now, I do admit that the example could have been chosen better... but this answer was given 3 thumbs down. I must have gone wrong somewhere else. Can someone point out the flaws in the answer, and how I could improve upon it?
-
I can find nothing wrong with the answer. The example isn't exactly the best ever, but it works, and it's certainly not bad enough to down-thumb the answer over.
You correctly stated the law of parsimony, which is that given two alternative hypothesis that are equal in all respects (namely, explanatory power) except for the number of assumptions they make, the one with the fewest number of assumptions should be selected, and your example essentially outlines this.
The only reasons I can think of that your answer got down-thumbed are:
1) You linked to the http://evolution.berkeley.edu website. You should know that every time you mention "evolution", you're liable to get a few down-thumbs from creationists.
2) Word choice in the example. I can see how someone might find it confusing.
or, 3) Maybe I don't know what the law of parsimony states either and am missing something huge, in which case, I eagerly await other responses to this question.
You correctly stated the law of parsimony, which is that given two alternative hypothesis that are equal in all respects (namely, explanatory power) except for the number of assumptions they make, the one with the fewest number of assumptions should be selected, and your example essentially outlines this.
The only reasons I can think of that your answer got down-thumbed are:
1) You linked to the http://evolution.berkeley.edu website. You should know that every time you mention "evolution", you're liable to get a few down-thumbs from creationists.
2) Word choice in the example. I can see how someone might find it confusing.
or, 3) Maybe I don't know what the law of parsimony states either and am missing something huge, in which case, I eagerly await other responses to this question.
-
I'm a scientist, and I see nothing wrong with your answer.