[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!