That is what I'm asking. However you want to define this or label it.
The article says a whole lot as far as I can tell without really saying anything. Or at least not what I'm asking. The "paradigms" all start with "sometimes", and they don't seem to be backed by anything scientific beyond handwaving.
I agree that if you had two theories that are equally expressive and accurate, all else being equal the simpler one would be preferable. That's not really what I'm asking about though.
We do not have two equal theories one that requires the fine structure constant and the other which does not. We have a theory with a fine structure constant and lots of other things. The question is why is that "problematic"? We don't look at e=mc^2 and think that ^2 is problematic and think that it suggests there should be a simpler better theory without it. Why does alpha get singled out?
That is what I'm asking. However you want to define this or label it.
The article says a whole lot as far as I can tell without really saying anything. Or at least not what I'm asking. The "paradigms" all start with "sometimes", and they don't seem to be backed by anything scientific beyond handwaving.
I agree that if you had two theories that are equally expressive and accurate, all else being equal the simpler one would be preferable. That's not really what I'm asking about though.
We do not have two equal theories one that requires the fine structure constant and the other which does not. We have a theory with a fine structure constant and lots of other things. The question is why is that "problematic"? We don't look at e=mc^2 and think that ^2 is problematic and think that it suggests there should be a simpler better theory without it. Why does alpha get singled out?