Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Scrambles · 02-26-2003, 07:06 PM

Did you read the post starboy?...you used what I called Occam's Razor when applying skeptical thinking...and now you say that it is the tool of the wannabe skeptic. These two things seem contradictory to me.

First you claim that Occam's Razor is ludicrous and now you claim that noone can agree on what it actually is. You are the one who has a misconception of what Occam's Razor is and that is why you think it is ludicrous.

The two posts I quoted, show a profound misunderstanding of Occam's Razor.

Scrambles

Starboy · 02-26-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scrambles
Did you read the post starboy?...you used what I called Occam's Razor when applying skeptical thinking...and now you say that it is the tool of the wannabe skeptic. These two things seem contradictory to me.

First you claim that Occam's Razor is ludicrous and now you claim that noone can agree on what it actually is. You are the one who has a misconception of what Occam's Razor is and that is why you think it is ludicrous.

The two posts I quoted, show a profound misunderstanding of Occam's Razor.

Scrambles

Okay scrambles, I'll go real slow for you. If you decide that a dictum or principle is a useful tool, then you should be able to have a common definition that all can understand and you should have a method of application that everyone agrees with. An example of this is the concept of addition. Everyone (assuming they were educated and it stuck) should be able to agree as to what an integer is and how to add two of them together. But you see scrambles, if you peruse this thread and do a search on google you will find many different definitions, interpretations and applications of ockham's razor. It would be like one group defining pi to be an integer and saying that 1 + pi = 4, while another group does something different.

Without an agreed apon definition and method of application it is not even possible to evaluate the idea to see if it has any merit. If the final definition makes a claim on reality then it can be tested, otherwise it boils down to a subjective evaluation, which I suspect would lead to results that are no better than random chance. But without an agreed apon definition this is just speculation.

Starboy

Scrambles · 02-26-2003, 07:46 PM

Starboy,

If 10000 people agree on a definition and 1 person disagrees, is that grounds for discarding the concept or should that one person either learn the agreed upon definition or shut up and stop tearing down a strawman??

I am saying that YOU, starboy, do not know what Occam's Razor is. I disagree with your assertion that noone agrees on a definition of Occam's Razor. I understand the issues associated with arguing the merits of something when there is no commonly agreed definition.

You are arguing against a concept which you call "Occam's Razor", which is rediculously absurd.

Scrambles

Radorth · 02-26-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Your partial view is an insult to them and the very many non-Christians - including me, I may say - who feel an obligation to help the weak and needy.

I never said others don't pitch in, but given the endless insults to Christians on this site, and the aggrandizing of atheist holiness, I think my comment was appropriate.

Quote:

I wonder if you know what that means?

No I just give more of my basic sustanance than Bill Gates would dream of because I'm naive, Jesus taught me to hate the needy, and I'm really supposed to be planning terrorist acts against innocent people instead of taking care of orphans.

That's what your loving fellow atheists here tell me anyway.

Rad

Starboy · 02-26-2003, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scrambles
Starboy,

If 10000 people agree on a definition and 1 person disagrees, is that grounds for discarding the concept or should that one person either learn the agreed upon definition or shut up and stop tearing down a strawman??

I am saying that YOU, starboy, do not know what Occam's Razor is. I disagree with your assertion that noone agrees on a definition of Occam's Razor. I understand the issues associated with arguing the merits of something when there is no commonly agreed definition.

You are arguing against a concept which you call "Occam's Razor", which is rediculously absurd.

Scrambles

Scrambles, if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle. But your aunt doesn�t have balls so she is your aunt. In other words, scrambles, your argument would only have meaning if 10000 people did agree on a definition. Funny thing, you say it is:

Quote:

Originally posted by scrambles
I thought Occam's Razor was about choosing the theory with the least amount of unproven assumptions (that explains the data adequately) as the best explanation, yes?

But,

Quote:

Albert Einstein says:
�Things should be as simple as possible but no simpler.�

Too bad old Al didn�t explain exactly how to decide if an explanation was too simple. The application of parsimony in his case is very interesting. When Einstein came up with his equations of General Relativity he included a term he coined as the cosmological constant. He later decided that he had made the biggest blunder of his life by including it (perhaps he was applying Ockham�s razor). However it is now being used to explain the long distance repulsive force that has been implied by recent astronomical observations.

The Oxford Philosophical dictionary says:

Quote:

Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
A methodological principal dictating a bias towards *simplicity in theory construction, where the parameters of simplicity vary from kinds of entity to the number of presupposed axioms to characteristics of curves drawn between data points.�

Interesting that they indicate that it is to be used only in theory construction. Not in deciding between two competing theories from two different camps.

Quote:

From the skeptics dictionary:
The original principle seems to have been invoked within the context of a belief in the notion that perfection is simplicity itself. This seems to be a metaphysical bias which we share with the medievals and the ancient Greeks. For, like them, most of our disputes are not about this principle but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. And so on. To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In the end, maybe Occam's razor says little more than that for atheists God is unnecessary but for theists that is not true. If so, the principle is not very useful. On the other hand, if Occam's razor means that when confronted with two explanations, an implausible one and a probable one, a rational person should select the probable one, then the principle seems unnecessary because so obvious. But if the principle is truly a minimalist principle, then it seems to imply the more reductionism the better. If so, then the principle of parsimony might better have been called Occam's Chainsaw, for its main use seems to be for clear-cutting ontology.

I find it interesting that the Skeptics dictionary [http://skepdic.com/occam.html] shares my sentiment towards Ockham�s razor.

This is an interesting site [http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html]. It shows just how much agreement there is among scientists as to what Ockham�s razor means:

Quote:

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements...
"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
... or in the only form which takes its own advice...
"Keep things simple!"
Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory.

Interesting, another physics site that agrees with what I have been saying. It really is only useful for concocting theories and even then it may not be necessary. I could go on scrambled but it is easy to see that you are full of sh*t.

Good night.

Starboy

Scrambles · 02-26-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Albert Einstein says:
�Things should be as simple as possible but no simpler.�

"Simple" is not defined by einstein in this quote, but

Quote:

Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
A methodological principal dictating a bias towards *simplicity in theory construction, where the parameters of simplicity vary from kinds of entity to the number of presupposed axioms to characteristics of curves drawn between data points.�

hmmmm. You do realise that you can get very "complex" explanations without many presupposed axioms and vice versa?

This...

Quote:

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements...
"If you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
... or in the only form which takes its own advice...
"Keep things simple!"
Notice how the principle has strengthened in these forms which should be more correctly called the law of parsimony, or the rule of simplicity. To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended. Should we not test those predictions instead? Obviously we should eventually, but suppose we are at an early stage and are not yet ready to do the experiments. We are just looking for guidance in developing a theory.

is from a section specifically demonstrating bastardisations of Occam's Razor. Read it closely, including the bold segment.

The skeptics dictionery doesn't justify your warped definition of Occam's Razor, it just questions its usefulness.

Quote:

Interesting that they indicate that it is to be used only in theory construction. Not in deciding between two competing theories from two different camps.

That doesn't mean you cannot use it to compare theories. Just look for the one which looks the most like it is constructed according to the principle.

Quote:

Interesting, another physics site that agrees with what I have been saying. It really is only useful for concocting theories and even then it may not be necessary.

No it didn't agree with you at all. Firstly it tells you that Occam's Razor is bastardized as follows and then lists definitions similar to yours. Then it goes on to say that it's not supposed to compare theories which make different predictions. I never said it was supposed to do that. It can be used to compare theories which make the SAME predictions.

Edit to add:

Quote:

Too bad old Al didn�t explain exactly how to decide if an explanation was too simple. The application of parsimony in his case is very interesting. When Einstein came up with his equations of General Relativity he included a term he coined as the cosmological constant. He later decided that he had made the biggest blunder of his life by including it (perhaps he was applying Ockham�s razor).

Adding the constant was introducing an unneccesary assumption. By saying that he may have been applying Occam's Razor when introduction this unneccesary assumption, you show that you still do not understand it.

Quote:

I could go on scrambled but it is easy to see that you are full of sh*t.

:boohoo:

Scrambles

Starboy · 02-27-2003, 09:08 AM

Okay scrambled, I claim that there is no agreed upon definition and method of application and show several examples of this by prominent people and organizations and your only response is that I don't know what Ockham's razor is. Do you realize how stupid that is? Unless you can show that there is a well agreed upon definition and method of application then the only claim you can make is that I don't understand your particular definition and interpretation - scrambles' razor.

In addition I also show that faculty at a well respected organization such as UC have posted sentiments similar to mine. I only spent a short time researching the topic and did not list everything I found.

There is no doubt that Ockham's razor as a concept predates modern science and over the last six centuries has resulted in many different and conflicting interpretations and applications, some of which Ockham him self would have thought ridiculous. As such it is a week-kneed concept at best and at worst a ridiculous concept and thus no thoughtful person would use it. I have yet to come across a reasonable use that could have easily avoided it.

Scrambled, until you can demonstraite that there is a well accepted definition and method of application, you do not have an argument.

Starboy

Scrambles · 02-27-2003, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements

Did you not read this part or something? This shows that they did NOT agree with you numbnuts. They think definitions like yours are WRONG.

btw, the argument has gone...
1) I claim you do not know what Occam's Razor is
2) You claim there is no widely agreed upon definition
etc...

Why do I need to show a method of application when all I am trying to establish is that you have the definition wrong?

Here are a few quotes I found from a google search for "Occam's Razor", not quoting the sites which just say "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" or 'Plurality should not be posited without necessity". It is clear that this applies to unnecessary assumptions in a theor.

from
here

Quote:

The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed

here

Quote:

Don't make unnecessarily complicated assumptions

interesting

Quote:

In the history of Science we find the principle has often been cited to argue in favor of one theory over others. It has played an especially successful role in physics. One example is the preference for Newton's laws of motion and gravitation over Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Although both theories made essentially the same predictions about the motions of the planets, Newton's law is simpler and more general, requiring fewer assumptions, and was hence preferred. Newton's theory was later empirically confirmed when its predictions led to the discovery of the planet Neptune.

Note how they use the unnecessary assumptions definition.

here

Quote:

Occam's Razor is used to cut away elements of theories which cannot be observed

here

Quote:

if it is not *necessary to introduce certain complexities or hypotheticals into a situation or explanation, then don't do it

finally

Quote:

Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions.

See how this one says "choose the simplest", and then goes on to explain what "simplest" means in this context. The theory with the least assumptions. That's all for now.

Scrambles

Starboy · 02-27-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scrambles

Quote:

Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements

Did you not read this part or something? This shows that they did NOT agree with you numbnuts. They think definitions like yours are WRONG.

btw, the argument has gone...
1) I claim you do not know what Occam's Razor is
2) You claim there is no widely agreed upon definition
etc...

Why do I need to show a method of application when all I am trying to establish is that you have the definition wrong?

Here are a few quotes I found from a google search for "Occam's Razor", not quoting the sites which just say "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" or 'Plurality should not be posited without necessity". It is clear that this applies to unnecessary assumptions in a theor.

scrambles, is English a second language for you. The quotes support my claim that there are many definitions and interpretations of those definitions in use and they do not reflect the original intentions of the person after which the dictum is named. They do not demonstrate a commonly understood concept. If they did support a commonly understood definition, instead of pointing out the many different popular interpretations and their failings it would have just stated the definition and the method of application.

Also scrambles you keep referring to my definition. I have never once defined it. All I have done is quoted other�s definitions and interpretations and applications and then criticized them. Why do you keep referring to my definition? I offer no definition. One of my arguments is that there is no commonly accepted definition and method of application. Why would I define something that I claim has no common definition? Are you okay scrambles? Your thinking is scrambled.

Starboy

Scrambles · 02-27-2003, 03:28 PM

The definition I refer to is the definition you seem to have in your head. The misunderstanding seems to be that you have a pre-defined concept of what "complex" means and you won't accept any redefinition.

The quotes show that there IS a common understanding of what Occam's Razor is. You have taken a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor (due to a hangup of the the term "complexity") and proceeded to say that Occam's Razor is absurd.

Well it IS absurd the way you understand it!!! But the actualy concept, once a definition of "complexity" has been established, is not. There are not many definitions of Occam's Razor. There is common understanding and common misunderstanding, one absurd (the misunderstanding), the other not. Do you really think it would be a common term if the concept was absurd??

I don't think that you disagree with the fact that a theory should have as few assumptions as possible. This is good. You think that aiming for simplicity in explanation over all else is absurd. Well guess what, that's not Occam's Razor.

Scrambles

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2003, 07:06 PM	#91
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	Did you read the post starboy?...you used what I called Occam's Razor when applying skeptical thinking...and now you say that it is the tool of the wannabe skeptic. These two things seem contradictory to me. First you claim that Occam's Razor is ludicrous and now you claim that noone can agree on what it actually is. You are the one who has a misconception of what Occam's Razor is and that is why you think it is ludicrous. The two posts I quoted, show a profound misunderstanding of Occam's Razor. Scrambles

02-26-2003, 07:46 PM	#93
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	Starboy, If 10000 people agree on a definition and 1 person disagrees, is that grounds for discarding the concept or should that one person either learn the agreed upon definition or shut up and stop tearing down a strawman?? I am saying that YOU, starboy, do not know what Occam's Razor is. I disagree with your assertion that noone agrees on a definition of Occam's Razor. I understand the issues associated with arguing the merits of something when there is no commonly agreed definition. You are arguing against a concept which you call "Occam's Razor", which is rediculously absurd. Scrambles

02-27-2003, 09:08 AM	#97
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Okay scrambled, I claim that there is no agreed upon definition and method of application and show several examples of this by prominent people and organizations and your only response is that I don't know what Ockham's razor is. Do you realize how stupid that is? Unless you can show that there is a well agreed upon definition and method of application then the only claim you can make is that I don't understand your particular definition and interpretation - scrambles' razor. In addition I also show that faculty at a well respected organization such as UC have posted sentiments similar to mine. I only spent a short time researching the topic and did not list everything I found. There is no doubt that Ockham's razor as a concept predates modern science and over the last six centuries has resulted in many different and conflicting interpretations and applications, some of which Ockham him self would have thought ridiculous. As such it is a week-kneed concept at best and at worst a ridiculous concept and thus no thoughtful person would use it. I have yet to come across a reasonable use that could have easily avoided it. Scrambled, until you can demonstraite that there is a well accepted definition and method of application, you do not have an argument. Starboy

02-27-2003, 03:28 PM	#100
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	The definition I refer to is the definition you seem to have in your head. The misunderstanding seems to be that you have a pre-defined concept of what "complex" means and you won't accept any redefinition. The quotes show that there IS a common understanding of what Occam's Razor is. You have taken a common misunderstanding of Occam's Razor (due to a hangup of the the term "complexity") and proceeded to say that Occam's Razor is absurd. Well it IS absurd the way you understand it!!! But the actualy concept, once a definition of "complexity" has been established, is not. There are not many definitions of Occam's Razor. There is common understanding and common misunderstanding, one absurd (the misunderstanding), the other not. Do you really think it would be a common term if the concept was absurd?? I don't think that you disagree with the fact that a theory should have as few assumptions as possible. This is good. You think that aiming for simplicity in explanation over all else is absurd. Well guess what, that's not Occam's Razor. Scrambles

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.