NOGO

I guess that in a way you are correct.
Occam does propose that when faced with an issue and the evidence leads to an obvious conclusion then we should limit imaginitive alternatives which do not have any evidence and accept the obvious.

For example take Matthew 24:34
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Perhaps this sentence means exactly what it says.
So why be imaginive and try coming up with millions of alternate explanations which have no other reasons than the fact that believers do not like what it says.

I do not want a discussion on Matthew 24 since one is already going on in BC&A. So if you are to comment on Mt24 please do so in BC$A.

There are many other cases that I can quote.

ManM

Valmorian,
No, it's not a matter of necessity. It's a matter of simplicity.

Are you going to discount the possibility that space aliens are responsible solely on the grounds that the theory is more complex than competing theories?

NOGO,
You have got it wrong. Occam's razor deals with two theories that both explain the evidence.

HaysooChreesto!

How appropriate the title of this post...

MarcoPolo

I understand what you're trying to say but I think you've got a wrong view of the Razor. Razor isn't discounting anything. It's simply postulating that the simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

Yes, it's possible that space aliens did that, but based on what we know NOW, it seems less likely.

ManM

MarcoPolo,
Can you demonstrate a correlation between simplicity and correctness? Occam's razor just seems silly to me. Theories should not be refuted by their redundancy with simpler theories. They should be refuted by the poor job they do at explaining the evidence.

mecca777

Except that by that benchmark, one can never discount the actions of omnipotent supernatural beings, even if there is no positive evidence for their existence.

Starboy

I agree ManM. What passes for an argument in philosophy wouldn't cut it in science.

Starboy

MarcoPolo

Again you just don't seem to understand. The Razor isn't saying it's not possible and it's certainly not refuting the answer, it's just saying that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the best.

Tercel

Actually Occam's Razor is extensively used in science.

Hehe, I laughed for about a minute upon reading that.

Though now I read further, I apparently wasn't laughing for the same reason you were...
There's nothing wrong with Occam's Razor itself. Just when atheists claim they're resorting to Occam's Razor, more often than not they're really resorting to Occam's Principle of Limited Imagination...


I've rather amused by Devnet's idea of naturalistic presuppositionalism: if all else fails make athiests as irrational as the fundamentalist presuppositionalists. Good idea. What will they think of next?

ManM

MarcoPolo,
I agree with you on the condition that "best" is understood in a pragmatic sense.