Many people, even and physicists, are still conviced that simple questions must have simple answers. In my opinion the reason for that lies in the nature of their education. In other words, the nature of their education bothers them to see the ''right'' answer. It is the triumph of linearity. For example,the simple question can be given by simple equations of motions and simple initial conditions.Drawing the trajectory in the phase space, we can often see that the answer is chaotic.

Proof of concept, the answer is: "no".

Yes it does:

Mt-pyramid Wholistic Geometric Quester: mtpyramid.weebly.com

MT-pyramid Wholistic Geometric Quester in relation to individual's personal spatial geometric pattern: Googol Search.

Below is a SNIP from a forthcoming article, "Morgan's canon," that I was invited to write for the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. To see the full article, please go to my website:

https://psyc.franklin.uga.edu/directory/people/roger-k-thomas

Look among "Recent Publications."

SNIP

X: Simplicity in Philosophy

Emblematic and representative of articles and books by philosophers of science on the subject of simplicity as a basis for choosing between or among alternative explanations, theories, etc., 50+ years ago was Bunge’s (1963) The myth of simplicity: Problems of scientific philosophy. For psychological science, perhaps, the most recurring problem with simplicity as a criterion for choosing among alternative explanations is that most explanations involve unrecognized or hidden assumptions that confound being able to determine which is the simplest explanation. Bunge’s view that simplicity was a myth or, at least, that simplicity is almost forbiddingly capable of being defined or applied continues 50+ years later. For a recent example, Fitzpatrick (2015, pp. 39-40) wrote:

The putative role of considerations of simplicity in the current practice

of science gives rise to a number of philosophical problems, including

the problem of precisely defining and measuring theoretical simplicity,

and the problem of justifying preferences for simpler theories. As this

survey of the literature on simplicity in the philosophy of science

demonstrates, these problems have turned out to be surprisingly resistant

to resolution, and there remains a live debate amongst philosophers

of science about how to deal with them.

Scorzato (2013, p. 2867) addressed some problems associated with assumptions and language that prohibit the ability to decide which explanation is simplest.

Simple assumptions represent a decisive reason to prefer one theory

to another in everyday scientific praxis. But this praxis has little

philosophical justification, since there exist many notions of simplicity, and

those that can be defined precisely strongly depend on the language in

which the theory is formulated. The language dependence is a natural

feature – to some extent – but it is also believed to be a fatal problem.

. . . . in fact, the concepts that enable a very simple formulation, are not necessarily measurable . . . . precisely those concepts that make the

theory extremely simple are provably not measurable.

If Fitzpatrick’s and Scorzato’s observations and conclusions are not enough to make a working behavioral scientist dizzy with uncertainty about using parsimony or simplicity as a criterion to choose among alternative explanations of behavior, Sober’s (2015) Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual should persuade behavioral scientists to surrender completely any attempt to use simplicity to choose among alternative explanations.

If there is such a question needing clarification, the easiest way is to experiment at a personal level; to be up-to-date.

Exploring concept is Contextual, to be validated in time and place.

Referring to the past is not applicable to the present or future time.

Are we looking for finding similarities for evaluating RESEARCH FINDINGS or RESEARCHING TO FIND FACTS?

EC3 & EC4; Individual Difference; Exponential thinking and wisdom for Re-Modelling Methodological approaches.

Technology is in our side for "CONTEXTUAL EXPLORATION; Spatial Thinking; Shaping our research question be addressed Multidimensional.

Mehri Takhvar. When you can’t tell me what a “fact” is, we may have a basis for discussion. It was once accepted as fact that phlogiston caused fire, that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth to cite but three so- called “facts” amongst many more since refuted.

Roger K. Thomas,

Thank you for insightful question.

My personal experience tells me that: FACT IS CONTEXTUAL TO BE EXPLORED IN TIME AND PLACE.

This is governed by personal spatial geometry in time and place. Who? where? how? when?

MT-pyramid Wholistic Geometric Quester: mtpyramid.weebly.com

If however, we struggle defining facts, what are we searching for?

Best Regards

Many people, even and physicists, are still conviced that simple questions must have simple answers. In my opinion the reason for that lies in the nature of their education. In other words, the nature of their education bothers them to see the ''right'' answer. It is the triumph of linearity. For example,the simple question can be given by simple equations of motions and simple initial conditions.Drawing the trajectory in the phase space, we can often see that the answer is chaotic.

No.

Unless they are false.

Roger K. Thomas,

"Do simple questions usually have complicated answers?" - You ask. Sometimes this is the case, other times this is not the case. What do you mean by simple questions?

As per my understanding, science looks for parsimony and hence simple questions should have simple answers. Simple questions and simple answers may be deep. It is often the case that complicated answers hide (e.g., our ignoranace) more than they reveal (e.g., a significant understanding of the topic at issue).

Once, Einstein astutely remaraked that if we cannnot put it simply what we know, then it is is lilely that we do not master it. This idea echoes in Wittgenstein's thinking when he declared that what can be said, can be said simple. The pinciple of simplicity should not be taken for the triumph of linearity, as, with my all respect, seems to be the case of our colleague Dragoljub. The principle of simplicity, not linearity, lies also at the heart of W.Occam's razor argument, that is, entities are not to be unnecessarily multpliplied. Complicated answers often resort to a multitude of words. And "with a multitude of words transgressions are increased" (Book of Proverbs).

As I see it, simple questions are often, say, irritating questions, that is, questions that go against the satus quo and the mainstream and whose answer advances knowledge and lead us to a better knowledge of the unknown.

KInd regards,

Orlando

Dear Orlando M Lourenço I used ''triumph of the linearity'' with intence to remind that nineteenth century and almost all twentieth century were era of domination of the linearity in the classical physics. This means that I didn't think that the principle of simplicity arises from linearity. I wanted to say that the chaos is often feature of very simple systems and it is possible to say, roughly, that simple questions usually have complicated answers. All the best.

Dear Dragoljub,

Thank for your reactions to my post. I understand now that when you spoke about the 'triumph of the linearity'' you had in mind the linearity in the classical physics in almost all twentieth century . If this is the case, then I agree with.you.

Even so, the principle of linearity and the principle of simplicity are distinct principles. I am in favor of the principle of simplicity, not in favor of the principle of linearity. It is too common, at least in the social sciences, to jugde as deep what we do not understand. The argument is that if one does not understand, for example, an oral presentation delivered at scientific meeting, then it should be profund. It this were not the case, then we would have understand it.

I wonder whether you are acquainted with Sokol's hoax. He purposely submitted to the Journal Social Text a manuscript with undefined jargon where he played with words. To his surprise, all the blind reviewers recommended publication of the paper and yet the manuscript was no more than a pure hoax. Needlless to say, Sokol's intention was to cast doubts on the so called blind-peer review system.

All the best,

Orlando

yes, Some time the simple question is still unanswered. So, it may come up with complicated answers or simply simple answer as expected. There are a variety of question from centuries whether mathematical, physical or philosophical all questions can be answered in different ways.