54
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a practical guide in the development
of new theoretical models, but not as a criterion to establish their validity.
In fact, it may happen that, later on, new observational or experimental data
require us to modify or abandon these models in favour of new ones. It is
important to remark that in science there is no place for dogmas, and that
every new result must be seen only as one more step in a long journey, rather
than as the final word.
Simplicity has of course obvious practical advantages, and also a powerful
aesthetic appeal. The main criterion for the acceptability of a given theory is
its falsifiability, i.e. the possibility to prove it wrong (see Appendix 3.5). This
concept, introduced by Philosopher, Karl Popper, may be difficult to understand and even counterintuitive. However, if it is impossible to prove that a
certain theory is wrong, we are left only with the alternative of believing it, or
rejecting it altogether. Our decision becomes an act of faith, instead of being
based on experimental or observational evidence, in open contradiction with
the scientific methodology. Moreover, with fewer assumptions, the burden of
falsifying them is lighter.
As an example, let us examine the Bishop of Ussher’s 7 assertion that
the earth was created at 6 p.m. on Saturday, October 22 nd , 4004 BCE in
the proleptic Julian calendar, 8 near the autumnal equinox. Which time zone
this referred to is unknown. Presumably it wasn’t daylight-saving time, as in
Genesis the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day. When presented with
evidence of fossils that can be dated to much earlier times than this, some
fundamentalists claim that the fossils were also created, along with everything
else, in 4004 BCE.
It is impossible to disprove in absolute terms such a thesis. If the fossils,
along with all other prehistoric relics, cave paintings and the like, had been
created in some kind of celestial scam in order to trick naïve scientists
and archaeologists, then the scam cannot be falsified. Ussher’s assertion, by
its nature, can always be tailored to explain the observed data. However,
according to Popper, such theories are not science.
It is, of course, easy to use Occam’s Razor to counter the old bishop.
Scientific theories are much simpler than Ussher’s explanation, involving, as
they do, only one Big Bang, compared with the requirement of countless
individual acts of creation for each fossil and ancient artefact.
7 James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland), 1581–1656 AD.
8 The proleptic Julian Calendar extends the Julian Calendar backwards in time, taking correct account
of Leap years. The Julian Calendar is the precursor of the modern Gregorian calendar.
R. Barrett and P. P. Delsanto
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a practical guide in the development
of new theoretical models, but not as a criterion to establish their validity.
In fact, it may happen that, later on, new observational or experimental data
require us to modify or abandon these models in favour of new ones. It is
important to remark that in science there is no place for dogmas, and that
every new result must be seen only as one more step in a long journey, rather
than as the final word.
Simplicity has of course obvious practical advantages, and also a powerful
aesthetic appeal. The main criterion for the acceptability of a given theory is
its falsifiability, i.e. the possibility to prove it wrong (see Appendix 3.5). This
concept, introduced by Philosopher, Karl Popper, may be difficult to understand and even counterintuitive. However, if it is impossible to prove that a
certain theory is wrong, we are left only with the alternative of believing it, or
rejecting it altogether. Our decision becomes an act of faith, instead of being
based on experimental or observational evidence, in open contradiction with
the scientific methodology. Moreover, with fewer assumptions, the burden of
falsifying them is lighter.
As an example, let us examine the Bishop of Ussher’s 7 assertion that
the earth was created at 6 p.m. on Saturday, October 22 nd , 4004 BCE in
the proleptic Julian calendar, 8 near the autumnal equinox. Which time zone
this referred to is unknown. Presumably it wasn’t daylight-saving time, as in
Genesis the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day. When presented with
evidence of fossils that can be dated to much earlier times than this, some
fundamentalists claim that the fossils were also created, along with everything
else, in 4004 BCE.
It is impossible to disprove in absolute terms such a thesis. If the fossils,
along with all other prehistoric relics, cave paintings and the like, had been
created in some kind of celestial scam in order to trick naïve scientists
and archaeologists, then the scam cannot be falsified. Ussher’s assertion, by
its nature, can always be tailored to explain the observed data. However,
according to Popper, such theories are not science.
It is, of course, easy to use Occam’s Razor to counter the old bishop.
Scientific theories are much simpler than Ussher’s explanation, involving, as
they do, only one Big Bang, compared with the requirement of countless
individual acts of creation for each fossil and ancient artefact.
7 James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland), 1581–1656 AD.
8 The proleptic Julian Calendar extends the Julian Calendar backwards in time, taking correct account
of Leap years. The Julian Calendar is the precursor of the modern Gregorian calendar.