The Efficiency Argument

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

The Efficiency Argument

Post by Aetixintro »

From http://www.t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html wrote:The Efficiency Argument
Definition of Efficiency (one of them): Accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. -'Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary from Gramercy.

The solution by The Efficiency Argument is two-sided. It demands the theory to be as slim as possible and that it successfully describes the phenomena in the observation set it is supposed to describe.
In a sense, this gives the right map/"theory" to the right landscape/"phenomena in the observation set", to be blunt.

This work is meant as a critique or a complementation, contrast of the book, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, I think, of Paul Feyerabend.

I.e.: The whole of science is explainable by the sole use of HDM (hypothetico-deductive-method).
A possible mindset of a beginning: a 'fact' may be something else than a fact, but 'a result' is usually a result of a rational process and is therefore more desirable to obtain than 'a fact'. It is why I would find 'a result' more plausible as an objective to a theory of science rather than 'a fact'. This underpins the continuation that will look at all processes like methods and like everything else in order to make a system of discoveries into processes. The rational processes will in turn make 'facts' into results.

My work will be in the crossfire between Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend where I emphasise HDM and Efficiency with Impact sided with efficiency. It will be something with a touch of foundationalism (inductivism has died).

It's worth noting that The Efficiency Argument solves nicely the tack-on problem in Philosophy of Science because it cuts the theory down to the minimum required to describe the experimental data.

[Edit:] Efficiency goes through the whole row of science: efficient framework/method (HDM, Fallibilism, Falsificationism/Confirmation) which makes efficient theories (minimally complex and sufficient enough to serve the empirical foundation) which in turn effectively describes the observation set of phenomena correctly.

[Edit:] Additional virtue of this argument is that it allows some metaphysics to be included as long as it serves the cause of scientific efficiency. This has been a problem with other demarcation criteria, famously exemplified by Wittgenstein declaring his work of metaphysical nature to be burnt after having been used. This is no longer a requirement! :)

It should also be commonplace to remark that reading science should inform you of the latest devlopment and the smartest solution to what you're reading, normatively speaking, insofar the science presented really is science and not a document of history and that the science has been carried out properly in being the current, best science. In effect, you're always rewarded in getting informed and updated on a scientific problem, theoretically, in the science being the latest, newest science.
What do you think? It's meant to be added to the rest of the criteria of demarcation such as Fallibilism, Falsificationism, Repeatability, "objectivity"... the rest...

[Edit:] The Efficiency Argument entails:
* The Efficiency Argument itself
* Fallibilism
* HDM
* Falsification/Confirmation
* Significance graphs (by Philip Kitcher)
* Possibly Philosophical Investigations (by Wittgenstein)
* The theories themselves
* The process of making these theories There may be minor changes to this list.

I hereby declare the Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science for solved by this, under The Efficiency Argument!
(Hurray! Fireworks!)
The Declaration for the Solution to the Problem of Demarcation in Philosophy of Science has taken place 2nd February, 2010.
[Edit, 18.02.2011:] I've added "Significance graphs..." today. [End of edit.]
Post Reply