On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Guenter Wildgruber <gwildgru...@ymail.com> wrote: > post #3 > > intermediate note. > > The case of Case. > > He is definitely not your typical scientist. > He is/was a practitioner with >30years experience, and as such one does not > so much rely on theory but on intuition. > What works and not is more in your bones and not in your head. > > This makes a difference, because this is not peer-reviewable, and reveals a > fundamental problem of peer-reviewed scientific method: That it scraps > intuition altogether and replaces it by a mechanical method of > intersubjective verification, where all the intricate details are put under > the rug of the method. > > The fight is about those accepting some sort of sublime, and those who build > up knowledge up from the robust, i.e. the hard skeptics. > > What the hard skeptics miss, is, that their axioms -ie Occam- are on shaky > ground, or more to the point: Occam does not have a foundation in 'reality'.
I think occam's razor is useful for selecting explanatory axioms which emerge from a given philosphical outlook or paradigm, but it is a ridiculous basis for evaluating and comparing explanations which emerge from different paradigms.
