We must always start with the simplest possible explanations for the phenomena that surround us.
Why?
The fewer components, abstractions, or entities required for a hypothesis, the better the hypothesis.
Why?
(Not doubting Occam’s razor, pointing out that it needs an explanation).
There is more than one way to correctly describe reality.
That goes against he law of non-contradiction: if the two ways are different, they cannot both be correct.
Newton’s theory was nominally refuted by Einstein’s relativism, but this did not stop it from working
“Working” means making correct predictions, not describing reality.
However, Stephen Hawking suggests instead that we consider them all true: that a theory accurately describes the fundamental nature of things is of less importance to us than that it gives us reliable mechanisms for interacting with reality.
How important something is depends on ones values.
“All models are wrong, but some of them are useful.”
...is the opposite of “There is more than one way to correctly describe reality.”. Unless you start changing the meanings of “works”/”useful” versus “true”/”describes reality”.
Why?
Why?
(Not doubting Occam’s razor, pointing out that it needs an explanation).
That goes against he law of non-contradiction: if the two ways are different, they cannot both be correct.
“Working” means making correct predictions, not describing reality.
How important something is depends on ones values.
...is the opposite of “There is more than one way to correctly describe reality.”. Unless you start changing the meanings of “works”/”useful” versus “true”/”describes reality”.
PS. Nothing to say about induction?