[aharrison]

That is an excellent comment and I am particularly amused at the legal definition of science, which I had not heard of before.

Keep in mind that my definition is a simplification of the framework. Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal.

Note also that this is not how I would describe science to a layperson, or at least not without spending another hour or so going into greater detail of all of the necessary side effects and dangerous pitfalls, but like you are presenting.

[lutusp]

> Everything you said is necessary for generating the most accurate model, but - and correct me if I am wrong here - they are all there to support that final goal.

I don't want to sound like I'm arguing solely to argue, but if your thesis was correct, the Ptolemaic system could have been tuned repeatedly for greater and greater agreement with reality, but without ever reconsidering the basis of the model, the underlying theory.

History records that we instead abandoned the Ptolematic theory, even though it "worked" and would have been perfectly satisfactory by way of refinements, to support modern astrodynamics. But instead we stopped generating more and more accurate (and complex) models and replaced the entire structure.

It was the same with the ether theory -- after difficulties with the theory arose in the late 19th century, instead of "saving the ether" (an actual expression used at the time), we abandoned the entire structure -- this time 20 years in advance of any plausible replacement, which turned out to be relativity. And relativity turned out to be a much better theory in all respects, even though that wasn't obvious at the time.

This is getting into a complex area, one having to do with the law of parsimony (a.k.a Occam's razor) and theoretical elegance, but science isn't about the most accurate model, it is also about beauty and parsimony alongside accurate modeling.

[Locke1689]

This is 99% correct, but you're wrong about the last sentence.

Actually, science is about the most accurate model, but it turns out that what we mean by "beauty," is actually about simplicity, and thus about correctness.

There is a sound mathematical background behind simplicity and its likelihood of being correct, as outlined in Scott Aaranson's paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1791

[lutusp]

> ... it turns out that what we mean by "beauty," is actually about simplicity. and thus about correctness.

Not necessarily. The most beautiful theories aren't always the simplest. I'm only objecting to your use of "actually" above as though it were a firm relationship, rather than a desirable outcome that nature sometimes favors.

[nacker]

Great stuff, as usual, lutusp. The paradigmatic example is Kepler, who labored for years on models of the solar system based on the Platonic solids and "perfect" circular orbits.

The reason he is remembered as one of the founders of modern science is that he abandoned the aesthetic criterion in favor of the messier, uglier, facts.

[lutusp]

Good example! It was implicit in my argument, but it deserved to be stated explicitly, so thank you.

[nacker]

I'm sure you would enjoy these two Lew Rockwell interviews on the burgeoning soviet-style psychiatric regime in America:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/wp-content/uploa...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/wp-content/uploa...

Good luck with your anti-psychology campaign!