I will choose the simplest hypothesis according to Occam's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) though there might be some risks to rely on this principle.
He can go in 2 parallel tracks, and see where he will arrive and take the optimestic view ( the more favorable one) if he is optimistic, or the negative one if he is pessimistic. For my self I will apply the following ” Hope for the best and you shall find it.“ تفاءلوا بالخير تجدوه
I will choose the simplest hypothesis according to Occam's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) though there might be some risks to rely on this principle.
Initially, select two plans (Plan A and Plan B)
Accomplish either of the two plans which have more potential and acceptable in circumstances.
Regards,
Jahangir
In physics? Ultimately, build an experiment, determine which one works. One hypothesis is that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. The other hypothesis is that all objects fall at the same speed. Build an experiment, determine which one holds. Using mere words, it's not difficult to "explain" either case.
The more interesting work comes afterwards, to explain why.
If verified theory already exists, then you don't even need to build an experiment. Someone once said that if the moon suddenly disappeared, the earth would go out of orbit. That is a hypothesis, and using words alone, it sounds plausible. I claimed no. That is a mutually exclusive hypothesis. I can prove mine, but he couldn't prove his. Fortunately, neither of us needed to touch the moon.
In religion? I'm tempted to say, "Good luck." One hypothesis is that Jesus Christ is God, the other is that Jesus Christ is a prophet. Mutually exclusive, lots of explanatory power, not much to prove or disprove either line of thought.
It is not a situation of choice. It is a situation where neither is complete without the other inclusively , thus inconclusively and inconvenient. Philosophical barriers and language limitations are present in both cases. A correct and complete postulate is possible, upon completeness in the global sense of systematic analysis.
Se elige de acuerdo a la perspectiva del conocimiento; por ejemplo: Origen de la Vida de acuerdo a la Ciencia vs Religión
As noted above, an hypothesis is an idea that needs to be tested (scientifically or philosophically). When one has two or more operative hypotheses it is important to construct parallel and equally rigorous processes to test each hypothesis and then to assess the outcomes.
I choose things that fit my understanding !!!!!!!! (Sorry ) this is how I function ...
With my understanding I mean , technical / Science /Math (my education) and unfortunately society/philosophy (my parents practices - I hold them accountable !!! )
RE: I choose what I understand
If you only understand one of the hypotheses how will you recognize what the question presupposes, namely whether they are indeed mutually exclusive with equal explanatory power and scope?
If you do understand them both, and thus recognize that they are indeed mutually exclusive with equal explanatory power and scope, then the question remains, on what basis do you choose between?
Well, if they are mutually exclusive but equally crazy hypotheses with equally poor explanatory power and equally limited scope, the answer is easy: there's no basis for and no point in choosing between them. If they are equally good, they should make the same predictions and be confirmed by the same tests; in which case either go with best overall fit with established theory or with Occam's Razor (these often go hand in hand anyway).
The problem here is with "equally" which is vague, imprecise, sensitive to context, and at best tentative. Ditto for "explanatory power and scope".
Dear Kirk MacGregor
There is no such thing as: "equal explanatory power and scope", unless you are referencing all bad "stuff". (I am able to say this with assuredness -- being as much an empiricist as possible -- and have such a view, without ignorance or delusion (believe it or not) : best to BELIEVE this, for it is more-than-doubtful you can know otherwise; and, knowing that, assume (try for) the affirmative. (Perhaps this affirmation makes up for the seemingly negative Discussion I began minutes ago.))
If you can test both, then do it and use some method based on strong inference to compare their explanatory power. If you lack the resources to test both in the same project, start with the simplest hypothesis (Occam's razor), as suggested by some colleagues, and see if it is a good explanation. Suggested readings:
- Chamberlin, T. C. 1890. “The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” Science15: 92–96.
- Platt, J R. 1964. “Strong Inference: Certain Systematic Methods of Scientific Thinking May Produce Much More Rapid Progress than Others.” Science (New York, N.Y.)146 (3642): 347–53. doi:10.1126/science.146.3642.347.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics