Jayhawker Soule

Precisely correct. This is why Popper counterposes degrees of falsifiability to the aesthetics of the "conventionalist concept of simplicity". Given that all theories are tentative, in those "rare case where two theories predicted the exact same things", that which more easily lends itself to falsification is to be preferred. If the concept of 'prediction' is expanded to include predicted or proffered means of falsification, then there is no basis for excluding either.

Starboy

ConsequentAtheist, it’s nice to see a skeptic among the atheists. You are only the second on this thread (that I am aware of) that has recognized the difficulties with the dictum. From the posts I've seen, Ockham's razor appears to be one of the main (misunderstood) principles of the atheist faith.

Starboy

Jayhawker Soule

There is no atheist faith.

Starboy

The way these atheist have been defending parsimony you would think so. (BTW, I consider myself an atheist.)

Scrambles

The constant was added because Einstein ASSUMED an extra property of the universe which is NOT assumed when the constant is left out. If you really think that the cosmological constant is an example of Occam's Razor failing then I don't know that I can convince you of anything. It's like my saying "look the water is blue" and you saying "but that just proves my point that it is red".



Scrambles

Scrambles

Consequent,

Is the cosmological constant irrelevant?


From 4th page.
Plus Einstein's cosmological constant would not have arrisen if Occam's Razor had been applied.

What about the Pythagorean assumption that everything can be expressed in terms of rational numbers. That had impacts on various proofs. They needed to be fixed once that assumption was thrown away.



Scrambles

Jayhawker Soule

Stop trying to push water up hill. It was and is irrelevant to the principle of parsimony unless, of course, you join with the theists in insisting that the phenomena to be explained should match the explanation rather than the other way around.

Scrambles

How is the cosmological constant irrelevant? Einstein made an assumption that was not necessary, does this not violate the principle of parsimony?


Scrambles

Starboy

As you may recall, one of my claims is that there are many different understandings of what Ockham's razor or parsimony is. Al understood it to mean "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler". His understanding of Ockham's razor is very different from the way you understand it. The cosmological constant has an interesting story, Al first put it in because he assumed the universe was static, later decided that the simpler explanation was better since it would then account for Hubble expansion. He called the constant "the greatest blunder of my life." However later discoveries indicate that it should be put back in. What this illustrates, scrambles is that the only way to determine how simple or complex a theory or how unnecessary an assumption is by experiment on nature, and that Ockham’s razor really is of no help at all. As I have said numerous times, the only valid use is as a guide in concocting theories, and even in that case it is really just a fancy way of saying that intuition was used.

Starboy

Scrambles

Starboy,

I have said this before:
"Simple" and "complex" correspond to assumptions

If a theory explains all observed data the same as another theory, but with a subset of assumptions, then obviously the one with less assumptions is preferable.

I disagree that Occam's Razor == intuition. Intuition tells different people different things, and can lead to more assumptions than necessary.



Scrambles