25.01.2013 Views

popper-logic-scientific-discovery

popper-logic-scientific-discovery

popper-logic-scientific-discovery

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

simplicity 123<br />

for one, gives a negative answer. He says: ‘Simplicity is . . . a concept<br />

indicative of preferences which are partly practical, partly aesthetic in<br />

character.’ 1 And it is notable that he gives this answer when writing of<br />

the concept which interests us here, and which I shall call the epistemo<strong>logic</strong>al<br />

concept of simplicity; for he continues: ‘Even if we are unable to<br />

explain what is really meant by “simplicity” here, we must yet recognize<br />

the fact that any scientist who has succeeded in representing a<br />

series of observations by means of a very simple formula (e.g. by a<br />

linear, quadratic, or exponential function) is immediately convinced<br />

that he has discovered a law.’<br />

Schlick discusses the possibility of defining the concept of law-like<br />

regularity, and especially the distinction between ‘law’ and ‘chance’,<br />

with the help of the concept of simplicity. He finally dismisses it with<br />

the remark that ‘simplicity is obviously a wholly relative and vague<br />

concept; no strict definition of causality can be obtained with its help;<br />

nor can law and chance be precisely distinguished’. 2 From this passage<br />

it becomes clear what the concept of simplicity is actually expected to<br />

achieve: it is to provide a measure of the degree of law-likeness or<br />

regularity of events. A similar view is voiced by Feigl when he speaks of<br />

the ‘idea of defining the degree of regularity or of law-likeness with<br />

the help of the concept of simplicity’. 3<br />

The epistemo<strong>logic</strong>al idea of simplicity plays a special part in theories<br />

of inductive <strong>logic</strong>, for example in connection with the problem of the<br />

‘simplest curve’. Believers in inductive <strong>logic</strong> assume that we arrive at<br />

natural laws by generalization from particular observations. If we think<br />

of the various results in a series of observations as points plotted in a<br />

co-ordinate system, then the graphic representation of the law will be a<br />

curve passing through all these points. But through a finite number of<br />

points we can always draw an unlimited number of curves of the most<br />

diverse form. Since therefore the law is not uniquely determined by<br />

the observations, inductive <strong>logic</strong> is confronted with the problem of<br />

deciding which curve, among all these possible curves, is to be chosen.<br />

1 Schlick, Naturwissenschaften 19, 1931, p. 148. *I have translated Schlick’s term<br />

‘pragmatischer’ freely.<br />

2 Schlick, ibid.<br />

3 Feigl, Theorie und Erfahrung in der Physik, 1931, p. 25.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!