> Just like one can't disprove solipsism, one can only brush it aside as pragmatically useless.
Agree.
> Just because a theory is internally consistent or even accurate, does not mean it is a good all-around theory: simplicity and elegance counts too. And having to agree on who is the solipsist among all figments is inelegant and an impossibly complex task.
Indeed not... but the true measure of a theory/hypothesis is how hard is it to vary to explain new facts. (I think this idea is due to Peter Deutsch, originally.) If you can change your explanation by saying things like "Ah... well, Aphrodite wouldn't do that because she's pregnant in Spring"... then I'm sure we can agree that it's a badly or unfounded theory of the world.
This is actually an extremely high standard that very few pass.
Thanks. I'd never considered adaptiveness of a theory before and I like it. Perhaps adaptiveness at times emerges spontaneously from simplicity / regularization. But it is good to keep it in mind from the very start.
Agree.
> Just because a theory is internally consistent or even accurate, does not mean it is a good all-around theory: simplicity and elegance counts too. And having to agree on who is the solipsist among all figments is inelegant and an impossibly complex task.
Indeed not... but the true measure of a theory/hypothesis is how hard is it to vary to explain new facts. (I think this idea is due to Peter Deutsch, originally.) If you can change your explanation by saying things like "Ah... well, Aphrodite wouldn't do that because she's pregnant in Spring"... then I'm sure we can agree that it's a badly or unfounded theory of the world.
This is actually an extremely high standard that very few pass.