scigirl

HA HA! I like it.

scigirl

Anti-Materialist

Ah yes - Gravity is an excellent example to consider for this discussion.

Why would you choose the one force explanation - all else being the same?

Gravity is thought to be caused by curvature of space time.

But then you have to ask what space time is composed of, such that it might be able to be curved.

Are there smallest possible units of space-time?

If so, we could call those units of space time - spixels (space time pixels)

Then you have to ask - how far can a spixel stretch? Can a spixel be curved? Is it really only three dimensional - or is that just the part of the spixel that makes up the fabric of space time that we are a part of.

There could well be other dimensions to these spixels. Something or other must account for "spooky action at a distance" as observed in quantum mechanics.

If there are other spatial dimensions, which these spixels extend into - then are there entities that are composed of other configurations of the other ends of these 4,9, or 11 dimensional spixels?

If so - do any of these entities have fuzzy faces or wings.

If they do - you might have found your gremlins and faeries.

Ok - that may be a wee bit fanciful. But my point is still valid - we should be looking for gremlins and faeries because history has shown us that they keep turning up.

tribalbeeyatch

Quote:

We should look for Gremlins and Faeries because history has taught us that we are going to find them whether we want to or not.

You clearly don't understand Occam's Razor. We shouldn't add faeries and gremlins (contrary to your first quote above) because there is no reason to. Remember that William is talking about sufficient explanations, and a means of distinguishing between them. I agree that we should continue to look for gremlins and faeries (metaphorically speaking) because we don't know everything about everything, but you seem to be advocating that we add a dose of them to every theory just for the hell of it and in spite of the fact that we have no reason to suppose that they exist.

How about this: Suppose that you are Newton and you have two theories of gravity, Theory A and Theory B, each with equal explanatory power, each fully accounting for all of the known and relevant facts. Hell say that they are basically identical, with one exception, we add some faeries and gremlins to one of them:

Theory A: all objects in the Universe attract each other with a force that varies directly as product of their masses and inversely as square of their separation from each other.

Theory B: all objects in the Universe attract each other with a force that varies directly as product of their masses and inversely as square of their separation from each other and derives from an eternal game of tiddlywinks played by faeries and gremlins on the planet Mars

How do you decide between them and why? And please don't say that Newton's physics were incomplete, blah, blah, blah. That has no bearing on this discussion. William of Occam only provides us with a means of deciding between explanations of a certain type, not a means for determining the completeness of an explanation.

Anti-Materialist

Yes - in that situation we would reject the gremlins and faeries because they add nothing to the explanation.

People go around quoting occams razor left and right, as if it were some sort of holy writ of the universe.

The world view that states that this lonely little universe is all there is to existence, and that it created itself, very much depends on its proponents using - or misusing, as I believe you are saying people often do - occams razor.

In metaphysical discussions people use occams razor to justify the simplest world view that fits all the reliable data that they can find. But, in order to do this, they dismiss any unreliable data that conflicts with their world view.

Even the unreliable data must be considered.

Unreproducable paranormal phenomena provide what could be considered weak data. Basically - some labs generate consistent results, and other labs dont. Many scientists then go on and say that because this data is not perfectly verifiable, it should be dismissed. They often say this, because paranormal phenomena don't fit their world view. They complain that in order to accomidate for paranormal phenomena in their physics, that would have to add whole new levels of complexity, and that is not justified on the basis of weak data.

However - weak data is not the same as non-existent data. The PEAR institute gets consitent results for certain paranormal experiments. Other researchers dismiss their claims because other labs have failed to reproduce their results, and because if they didn't dismiss their claims then it would upset their whole view of how physics is supposed to work.

I think it is foolish to do this. They are using, or perhaps misusing, occams razor to choose this simplest explanation that fits all the strong data they have. In so doing, they have dismissed a whole set of weak data just because one lab couldn't do what another lab could do.

Until they can explain why the first lab is able to get consistent results that show evidence of some sort of paranormal data, they should refrain from dismissing any data at all. Even if it does mean their theories of physics might be incomplete.

Perhaps occams razor would be useful if it were only applied in situations where it truly should be applied - but it never is. The only situations where occams razor really works are in thought experiments. Yet people go around quoting it as if it were holy writ. I wouldn't object to it if were only applied to thought experiments. But I bet, in every example where occams razor has been applied to the real world, you could look at the example and find where the simple answer turns out not to be not so simple after all.

Abacus

Really? How so?

How so?

What? It was found that the physics of the time was insufficient to explain newly observed phenomenon. I don't believe for even one second that Occam's razor would have prevented us from making these observations and noting how they conflicted with the best theories of the time.

And how are you at applying your skepticism to pseudoscience?

Why do they have to explain that something came from nothing?

Yep, it's much better to add on a few (or infinite?) layers of the supernatural. Without any evidence compelling you to do so, of course.

Hey, you can believe or disbelieve in any fool thing you please.

Why do keep advancing that strawman? How about the simplest (with the fewest assumptions) one that gives the best explanation?

I'd pay you a million bucks if you could give me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of Gremlins and Faeries. If I had a million bucks, that is.

JGL53

A-M, I will leave to all the others the task of inducing in your thinking a proper appreciation of Occam's Razor in toto.

It is nice to see that you find it quite useful for thought experiments, though. So, here's how I use it in a thought experiment:

Either -

theory # 1. the universe of our experience is an eternal brute fact , or a natural evolved product of another natural eternal brute fact, i.e., the multiverse, or

theory #2. the universe of our experience is a creation of an invisible, immaterial, possibly unknowable, supernatural entity (person, power, energy, whatever), usually but not always identified with the word 'god'.

Both theories are sufficient to explain the universe's existence. The former is 'simplier', i.e, it doesn't multiply entities beyond necessity. Therefore, unless and until evidence comes forth in the future proving theory #2 to be superior, somehow, then the rational default assumption should be theory #1.

Do you agree with the results of my thought experiment? If not, then why not?

Anti-Materialist

That was a good argument!

But yes, I disagree - here is why.


Right at that moment where you say "the rational defaul assumption should be theory #1"

Why should it be theory 1?

You would say, because it is simpler.


But - I still don't see any reason why we should choose the simpler default assumption.


Think about it this way:

Theory 1 makes sense. Theory 2 would basically be the same as theory 1, with the added concept that perhaps something created the universe that is described by theory 1.

The something that created the the universe would be the Gremlin that we are adding on to theory 1.

We have no way of knowing - at this point - if theory one or theory two is more accurate - because, for this thought experiment, we are assuming all other things are equal.

Therefore - the only conclusion we can make is this:

Theory one and theory two both make sense. We don't have any data to lend us down one path or the other. So, that is where we leave it. That darn Gremlin may be out there, but if it is, it is not showing itself in any clear fashion. Thus, since we have no way of knowing, we will make no assumptions. It may be fruitful to look for evidence of the Gremlin, because certainly people are really curious about it - but until then, we will be honest with ourselves and make no assumptions.

But here is the part that really bugs me about the overuse of occams razor - in the real world, all things are never equal. Never. The idea that this universe is all there is to it is totally buggered up by the existence of plenty of weak data. Here is a small list of that weak data:

1) Really powerful - but by their nature totally unreproducible - anecdotes of paranormal events such as when a family member is riding in an airplane and heres a voice in her head saying "Kay, it's going to be all right". Later, it turns out that voice came at the exact same moment her father died. There is no way to reproduce or verify that event - but it is a powerful event, and thus should not be dismissed.

2) The results of experiments at the PEAR institute where they demonstrate anomalous human/machine interactions that totally defy what we know of physics. Other labs have had a hard time reproducing these experiments - however, people who investigate the methodology of the PEAR institute admit that they cannot totally dismiss their data either.

3) Near death experiences in hospitals that occur during a time period when the patients brain is supposed to be at minimal function. Yet - that patient comes back with a story in which they had some sort of vivid experience - and during that experience they were thinking quite vividly.

4) Annoying PSI experiments that yeild statistical flukes. Consistent statistical flukes.

5) The placebo effect is exceedingly powerful. It works in ways that just don't make sense to the materialist view of the human body, but that make perfect sense to a non-materialist view of the human body that includes an etheric counterpart. For example, there may not yet be a consistent explanation for why stupid rituals can cause warts to go away - but it happens.


There are plenty of other things I could add to this list. My point is this - they all amount to weak data. Because of that, all things between theory 1 and theory 2 are not equal. This does not mean that we should jump on the bandwagon and adopt theory 2 - it just means that we should keep an open mind and reach the only logical conclusion we can make, which is:

Occams razor doesn't apply (as it never does) because in a real-world analysis of theories 1 and 2, all things are not quite equal. Thus, either theory could be true. It'll take more research and analysis to prove it.

And that's it - we leave it there. Make no assumptions.

Shadowy Man

You should read about the history of Quantum Mechanics. It is quite fascinating.

No one went looking for the evidence that lead to the formulation of quantum theory. The evidence presented itself in experimentation. And in fact, most people at the time thought the discrepancies between classical physics and the experiments were just details to be worked out - that's how complacent they were with classical physics.

However, classical physics, albeit a simpler theory than quantum mechanics, does not adequately describe the experimental results. A new theory was developed, over time and in different pieces, that did.

Occam's razor, at least in the formulation that it was described to me as a physicist, is relevant to deciding between two theories that have the exact same observational consequences. In that case, it is preferred to choose the one that has the least amount of theoretical constructs. The "preference" is in an aesthetic sense, since both theories would explain the observations exactly the same.

BioBeing

Anti-Materialist:

As a practising scientist, I find that the implications for Ockhams Razor (in either of its forms, really) are obvious.

If I notice a phenomenon I want to investigate, I develop a hypothesis that I can test. I try to keep that hypothesis as simple as possible, and then design an experiment to try and disprove it. If I take as my hypothesis that two enzymes with 80% similarity will perform the same biological function, I can test it (purify the enzymes, test their activity, knock out the genes etc). If my hypothesis is that the enzymes have the same function becuase a little gremlin is sitting in the active site - how do I test this hypothesis? [Other than by X-ray crystallography or NMR structure determination, but then you might just tell me that the gremlin is camera shy when he doesn't show up]. Thus Ockhams razor tells me not to bother testing for the Gremlin - he isn't needed. Of course, if the enzymes prove to have different functions, is that evidence of the gremlin, or subtle changes in the active site caused by the different residues? I know which one I can test...

Anti-Materialist

Yes...

I agree. I can see where it would be useful in that sort of application.

But my objection is basically that people use occams razor in very illogical ways.

They dismiss weak data because they don't like it. Then they use occams razor to say their model is the one we should believe.

Perhaps I should not say that occams razor is horse poop. Perhaps I should say that the application of occams razor to philosophical discussions is used in a horse poopish way far too often. Because of that, it gets on my nerves.

So, I change my declaration. Occams Razor is not horse poop. My new declaration is this:

Occam's Razor has been horse poopified, and I wish people would stop abusing it.