Thread: Attiyah's razor

Attiyah’s razor

On finding an anomaly or abnormality in any natural phenomenon, scientists begin their attempts to account for it so as to give what might seem as an acceptable explanation. In such cases, however, I suggest that scientists must begin their attempts by finding or proposing another suitable anomaly in order to solve the abnormality confronting them. Accordingly, I suggest a scientific basis saying: “Anomalies solve each other” or : “abnormal solves abnormal”.
In other words, the priority in the field of explaining any anomaly must be for another anomaly. I see to call this basis as “Attiyah’s razor”.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Attiyah’s razor

On finding an anomaly or abnormality in any natural phenomenon, scientists begin their attempts to account for it so as to give what might seem as an acceptable explanation. In such cases, however, I suggest that scientists must begin their attempts by finding or proposing another suitable anomaly in order to solve the abnormality confronting them. Accordingly, I suggest a scientific basis saying: “Anomalies solve each other” or : “abnormal solves abnormal”.
In other words, the priority in the field of explaining any anomaly must be for another anomaly. I see to call this basis as “Attiyah’s razor”.

Are you suggesting that anomalies require us to discard established theories in favor of theories which explain the totality of the evidence?

Can you give one or two examples of this principle in operation?

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Attiyah’s razor

On finding an anomaly or abnormality in any natural phenomenon, scientists begin their attempts to account for it so as to give what might seem as an acceptable explanation. In such cases, however, I suggest that scientists must begin their attempts by finding or proposing another suitable anomaly in order to solve the abnormality confronting them. Accordingly, I suggest a scientific basis saying: “Anomalies solve each other” or : “abnormal solves abnormal”.
In other words, the priority in the field of explaining any anomaly must be for another anomaly. I see to call this basis as “Attiyah’s razor”.

Are you suggesting that anomalies require us to discard established theories in favor of theories which explain the totality of the evidence?

Great Thanks

Yes, this is my suggestion.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Attiyah’s razor

On finding an anomaly or abnormality in any natural phenomenon, scientists begin their attempts to account for it so as to give what might seem as an acceptable explanation. In such cases, however, I suggest that scientists must begin their attempts by finding or proposing another suitable anomaly in order to solve the abnormality confronting them. Accordingly, I suggest a scientific basis saying: “Anomalies solve each other” or : “abnormal solves abnormal”.
In other words, the priority in the field of explaining any anomaly must be for another anomaly. I see to call this basis as “Attiyah’s razor”.

Are you suggesting that anomalies require us to discard established theories in favor of theories which explain the totality of the evidence?

Great Thanks

Yes, this is my suggestion.

Okay... well, that's already got a name. We call it "revolutionary science" or, as Kuhn would put it a "paradigm shift".

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Can you give one or two examples of this principle in operation?

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Hubbl...Why-29554t.php

Hubble's law is wrong. Why?

Were Hubble's law right, it should, at least, satisfy the following twelve conditions:

1- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel at the same instant.
2- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding travel from at the same distance from the Earth.
3- Giving a concrete proof, not propositional, that all the galaxies began their expanding, translational travel while they were positioned stationary.
4- To prove that all the galaxies didn’t suffer any stopping whatever its cause.
5- To prove that all galaxies began their cosmological travel while having the same luminosity.
6- To prove that all the galaxies began their travel while having the same density.
7- To prove that there are no blueshift-showing galaxies.
8- To prove that the recent distance of any galaxy is purely a result of recession. In other words, to prove that any galaxy as a whole doesn’t experience any translational motion save the recessional one.
9- To prove that the rate of the expansion of any galaxy is time independent.
10- To prove that the galaxies of equal masses are still at the same distance.
11- To prove that there is no any other shift affecting the Doppler shift.
12- Showing that it could be applied to all the galaxies irrespective of their distance from the Earth.

Anyway, there are no evidence for proving any condition of the twelve. Therefore, Hubble's law is wrong.

Hubble's law is built on the considertion that all the galaxies are only redshift-showing. However, some blueshift-showing galaxies are now known.

You seem to have two mistaken ideas.

Hubbles Law is an observational statement. It does not claim that all galaxies have a particular behaviour. It states the majority of galaxies are receding and that there distance is propotional to their rate of recession. Each of your challenges involves a misinterpretation of what Hubble's Law says: you are arguing against a strawman.

Science does not prove anything, so your demand that any scientific law shoudl prove something is meaningless and reveals a profound ignorance of the philosopy of science.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Attiyah’s razor

On finding an anomaly or abnormality in any natural phenomenon, scientists begin their attempts to account for it so as to give what might seem as an acceptable explanation. In such cases, however, I suggest that scientists must begin their attempts by finding or proposing another suitable anomaly in order to solve the abnormality confronting them. Accordingly, I suggest a scientific basis saying: “Anomalies solve each other” or : “abnormal solves abnormal”.
In other words, the priority in the field of explaining any anomaly must be for another anomaly. I see to call this basis as “Attiyah’s razor”.

Are you suggesting that anomalies require us to discard established theories in favor of theories which explain the totality of the evidence?

Great Thanks

Yes, this is my suggestion.

Okay... well, that's already got a name. We call it "revolutionary science" or, as Kuhn would put it a "paradigm shift".

I highly appreciate this very encoureging comment Really, this gives me a great deal of hope. So, a great deal of thanks toTheBiologista.

Now please address the point that you are basing your statements on two mistaken ideas.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Now please address the point that you are basing your statements on two mistaken ideas.

Thanks to your interest
However, my statements are based on right ideas.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Now please address the point that you are basing your statements on two mistaken ideas.

Thanks to your interest
However, my statements are based on right ideas.

You need to demonstrate that your statements are based on right ideas. You are challenging the methodology of science as exhbited through the practice of thousands of scientists and as encapsulated in the work of Karl Popper. Most scientsts would accept Popper's view of what science is. Those who disagree can offer substantive arguments to justify their stance, not bland statements that they speak the truth. Please justify your unconventional stance in a viable way.

Originally Posted by Attiyah Zahdeh

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Now please address the point that you are basing your statements on two mistaken ideas.

Thanks to your interest
However, my statements are based on right ideas.

No, you have it ALL wrong.