johnlawrenceaspden comments on In Defence of Simple Ideas That Explain Everything But Are Wrong - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (52)
I think that it would probably be a good idea to differentiate: ‘simple explanations’ and 'explanations that are based on simple rules'. See Fake Simplicity for a description of simple explanations. An example would be attributing all of the causality to some other entity, e.g. god. Explanations that are based on simple rules can sometimes also be easy to understand, but the way in which they are reached is rarely simple. They are grounded in extensive research and evidence.
Simple explanations can be dangerous because they are easy to believe. They are:
I am just trying to saying that we should also be careful of simple explanations as well because they can be enticing. I would think that non-experts rarely have enough experience to reach explanations based on simple rules and will instead often just find simple explanations. This is because it is really hard or, perhaps, even impossible to find these simple rules without a lot of ground work. We often have to understand something intimately and deeply before we even begin to sense the undercurrent from the operation of these simple rules.
Here’s an extract from Feynman which is related:
Yes, I think that's all really solid. I'm definitely going for a 'simple explanation' rather than 'an explanation based on simple rules'. It hasn't even occurred to me that I can describe what's going on mathematically.
And one should be very careful indeed of such ideas, especially if they have human consequences. Which is why I mentioned people who were probably trying to do their best to make the world a better place, who would probably have not been too pleased with how their ideas turned out.
But I keep thinking about atomism. Democritus worked it out thousands of years ago, from simple observations: 'By convention there is colour, by convention there is sweetness, in reality, only atoms and the void'.
The essence of the truth. What Feynman called the one fact that he would like to communicate to an ignorant civilization.
And yet it took two thousand years to prove. And the answer was found by looking carefully into a cup of tea (poetically speaking!).
I do wonder whether the Greeks would have worked it out, if they'd had a real go instead of just believing their a priori assumptions.
There are many such examples.
In my particular case (which I am not claiming is anything like as important, even if it is bang right!):
I think so, but everyone seems to think it's absurd
That's what I'm claiming. We should take it seriously and have a look!
A great danger. Luckily I've suggested a simple experiment that would refute the whole idea beyond doubt.