When two things come
together in time it makes you wonder if it was down to fate, but as a ‘scientist’
believing in something without substantial evidence is a difficult thing to
comprehend. However the thought did cross my mind when a few weeks ago I booked
tickets to see a performance by a dance company called Ockham’s Razor at
Malvern theatre (http://www.ockhamsrazor.co.uk/wp/)
– highly recommended! I didn’t give the name of the group much thought until
that very same day I was reading the debate between Tucker et al. (2007), Jay
& Kenny (2009) and Samuele (2007) regarding a paper entitled: The rate of heat storage mediates an anticipatory reduction in exercise
intensity during cycling at a fixed rating of perceived exertion (Tucker et al.
2006). The discussion between these authors is a great example of a scientific
debate without any unnecessary fists been thrown. I recommend any physiologists
to read them (see references below). Anyway, booking the tickets and reading
those papers came at a time of writing an article for a scientific journal,
which lead me to question how I would write my paper.
In
response to Tucker et al (2006), Marcora (2007) entitled his viewpoint ‘Entia
non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’. Prior to reading his argument, I
first considered the title and my limited (almost non-existent) Latin kept me
quietly thinking ‘what the hell does that mean?’ So, in true researcher style I
‘Googled’ it and Wikipedia-ered’ it. Admittedly wikipedia is not always a
reliant source but usually a good way of getting to grip with the general idea.
However, Google Scholar came up with Ockham’s razor
first in the list (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html). I had never heard of Ockham’s Razor (or Occam’s Razor) before and
here it had appeared twice in less than 4 hours! Marcora (2007) briefly summarises the title at the end of the article
and also references Ockham’s razor. From my brief search it translates from
Latin into ‘Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily’. The phrase dates
back to the 14th Century and was a principle by which William of
Ockham used to justify many conclusions. He has been described a logician,
philosopher and theologian and many influential scientists adopted or used
similar principles. As a ‘young’ researcher, having only just finished my PhD 6
months ago I feel ashamed to not have known about Ockham’s Razor.
Typically,
questions are answered through well designed research protocols which aim to
eliminate other contributing variables. This type of practice is more in line
with Popplers theory of falsification. But when it comes to discussing the
results, proposing theories or models, researchers are at risk of making
erroneous claims based on data collected from less than rigorous tests or
miscalculations (see the viewpoints from Jay & Kenny (2009) and Marcora (2007) mentioned earlier). Having started teaching at the University of
Worcester a common trait of many students when writing lab reports are to come
up with the most complicated scientific answer possible. Quite often they fail
to realise that sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one. I believe
this is something common in all of us, but more so in students. As teachers and
practicing researchers we should encourage students to base their theories on
scientific principles but always remember the principle of Ockham’s razor. Other, more embellished translations include
‘of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal,
the simpler one is to be preferred’. In other words, keep it simple! It is a phrase I should have adopted whilst writing
my thesis and one which would have saved my supervisor countless hours of
reading!
Admittedly,
this is a very brief introduction into Ockham’s razor and I am by no means an
expert. So if you are interested in it then I urge you to research it more. If
not, then at least write out the phrase, stick it on your computer and follow
its message.
Nicola
Gerrett PhD
University of Worcester
(n.gerrett@worc.ac.uk)
References
Jay, O.
and Kenny, G.P. (2009). Current evidence does not support an anticipatory
regulation of exercise intensity mediated by rate of body heat storage. Journal of Physiology, 107, 2, 630-631.
Marcora, S. (2007). Entia non sunt multiplicanda praetor necessitate. Journal of Physiology, 578, 371.
Tucker,
R., Marle, T., Lambert, E.V. and Noakes, T.D. (2006). The rate of heat
storage mediates an anticipatory reduction in exercise intensity during cycling
at a fixed rating of perceived exertion. Journal of Physiology, 574, 905–915.
Tucker,
R., Marle, T., Lambert, E.V. and Noakes, T.D. (2007). Reply from Tucker, R.,
Marle, T., Lambert, E.V. and Noakes, T.D. Journal of Physiology, 578, 1, 373.
No comments:
Post a Comment