Stephen T-B

"You might want to take me up on my offer to..."
I thought I was going to read: "meet me at dawn."
Oh well.

Melkor

Well put. I was oversimplifying it...

Radorth

Well duh! Did I call Durant or Wells a cynic? Quite the opposite! And not once have I said all skeptics are cynics. In fact I have said quite the contrary. What is this platitude doing here unless YOU are basically a cynic who does not believe what I say.

I said no Christians are cynics somewhere? (Yawn) OK well here's something.

That's because their theories are the most PERFECT EXAMPLES of bypassing Occam's Razor. Of course your own cynicism may attribute other motives to me. I don't suppose you'd like to argue specifics about how their theories are riddled with assumptions- or something more in line with the thread?

Rad

Radorth

No, there are theories in between which accomodate all the facts, and internal evidence while discarding the false. But we'll not see one from you, will we? That is because you are suspecting what you wish to suspect, (false here so false there) and so you cannot come with a sufficiently complex theory either.

Rad

Starboy

In regards the applicability of Ockhams razor, it is up to those that insist that it is applicable to justify the claim. I don't think there is much to support it other than some philosopher several hundred years ago said so. The general trend in science as understanding of the universe has improved is to go from simple theories to more complex, not from more complex theories to simpler. Unless you parsimony supporters got something to back up your claim, you are no better than religionists pushing religion.

Starboy

Stephen T-B

“...not once have I said all skeptics are cynics.”
True. But I was commenting on something you did write, ie “I just find it entertaining to see how many skeptics can set aside their cynicism long enough to see the fallacy of their thinking.”

Rad, stamping his foot: “ ...YOU are basically a cynic who does not believe what I say.”
Sorry?
I don’t what it is you’ve said I’m supposed to believe. I didn’t know we were making statements of fact here so much as expressing opinions, beliefs and certainties in order that they might be evaluated and criticised.

Moving on to your final point, the first part of my last post did address the relevance of Occam’s razor to atheism; and Melkor’s and pz’s following posts suggested to me I was on the right track (pardon the pun.)
Do you disagree with what they said?

Leigh

Occam's Razor is only true where the principle of 'ceteris paribus' or 'all else being equal' is also used. If the evidence for 2 competing theories is about equal, then Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest one is likely to be correct. One example of this was the Ptolemaic versus Copernican models of how the Solar System moved. Both explained the movements, but Ptolemy's system was far more cumbersome, and the Copernican model became the accepted one.

Starboy

I would hope that people didn't think that the heliocentric theory is the preferred theory because it is simpler than the geocentric theory. I would hope that they would choose the heliocentric theory because it fits the observed facts so much better. Your example is not a very good one because the helocentric and geocentric theories do not predict the same outcomes. Is is not a case of 'ceteris paribus'.

Starboy

Jayhawker Soule

What does 'simpler' mean in a world quarks and ground state fluctuations? I suspect that, as science becomes more complex and nuanced, Occam's Razor becomes a far less viable heuristic, i.e., a tool more easily abused than used.

Leigh

Starboy, in the sixteenth century, there wasn't much difference in evidence between the 2 theories. Of course, today we have plenty of evidence that makes Ptolemy's theories look silly. My point was that 400 years ago, the observations made could be explained by both theories, because at that point in time the evidence was not clearly in favour of the Copernican theory.