|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2005 : 04:57:17
|
From a different thread ...
quote:
quote:
Occam's razor seems to be getting duller and duller in a universe that appears to defy the simple explanation.
Only a simple version of Occam's Razor gets dulled like that. The real thing is as sharp as ever, allowing us to compare theories with equal explanatory power.
The letter is on the desk.
- She came home, gathered the mail, and dropped it on the desk.
- She came home, gathered the mail, and dropped the letter upon entering the study. Seeing the cat playing with the letter, the young child picked it up, gave it to her older brother, who put it on the desk.
It seems to me that Occam's Razor is little more than a tautology: that which is unnecessary is unnecessary. This is somewhat useful in the domain of methodology, but metaphysically it should be served up with the caveat that 'unnecessary' is not the same as 'untrue'.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 05:01:31 [Permalink]
|
| I just think it doesnt apply everywhere, like astrophysics for example. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 06:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Occam's Razor only applies to two competing theories which have equal explanatory power.
In your example, ConsequentAtheist, does the letter have scratches on it from the cat? Or maybe some saliva?
In one situation, the woman does not know about the letter being on the desk. In another, she does.
In one situation, the child and brother knows about it, in the other they don't.
So the evidence for this would be:
Does the letter show signs of scratches or saliva?
Does the brother know about it?
Does the child know about it?
If the answer to any of these three are, "Yes," then the first explanation isn't valid.
If the answer to any of these three are, "No," then the second explanation isn't valid.
And if there is a mix of answers, then another explanation needs to be looked for.
But overall, when two competing theories have the same explanatory power, it does mean that one is more likely to be true than the other, not that one is true and the other is false. Of course, this rarely happens for two scientifically valid theories and is more often used to cut off paranormal explanations such as, "Goddidit."
Edit:
quote:
I just think it doesnt apply everywhere, like astrophysics for example.
Can you give some examples? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 06/13/2005 06:12:50 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 06:22:59 [Permalink]
|
The faithful, old Razor is as sharp and pertinent as ever; perhaps even more so. Don't forget; it says to the effect of: given the available evidence, the simplest answer is usually correct.
If Occam's fails, not enough evidence has been gathered, one way or another, to make the call.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 06:32:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Occam's Razor only applies to two competing theories which have equal explanatory power.
You're being needlessly contentious.
Yes, one might, upon investigation, discover evidence which adds weight to one or the other scenario, but until one (or both) are falsified, they remain on the table ... unless, of course, you wish to argue that there is some teleological principle, perhaps linked to Intelligent Design, that provides an unambiguous definition of simplicity and guarantees that the simpler theory is necessarily the more accurate one.
----------
Popper, by the way, suggests that, all things being equal, the simpler theory can be considered the preferable one if simplicity is viewed as ease of falsification. But even here it is worth noting that 'more preferred' is not the same as 'more true'. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 06:34:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
If Occam's fails, not enough evidence has been gathered, one way or another, to make the call.
Conversely, if "enough evidence has been gathered", Occam's Razor is unnecessary. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 06:46:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Conversely, if "enough evidence has been gathered", Occam's Razor is unnecessary.
Not at all, if more than one theory which explains all of the available evidence exists, even after the available evidence expands in scope.quote:
It seems to me that Occam's Razor is little more than a tautology: that which is unnecessary is unnecessary.
It doesn't say that, though. It says "that which is more needlessly complex is less likely to be true."quote:
This is somewhat useful in the domain of methodology, but metaphysically it should be served up with the caveat that 'unnecessary' is not the same as 'untrue'.
And that caveat has been in place since before William of Occam offered his formulation of the guideline that bears his name. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 06:50:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It says "that which is more needlessly complex is less likely to be true."
And why would that necessarily be the case? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 07:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Who says it is necessarily the case? Aside from millenia of practical experience, of course?
If my keys aren't where I left them the night before, and that's the whole of the evidence that I have before me, Occam's Razor tells me to look around some before I call the cops to report a burglary, or before I call Eyewitness News to report extra-terrestrial fob collectors. Those two "theories" are not "off the table," but neither is "my wife moved them." All three theories have equal explanatory power, given the evidence at hand (I've done nothing more than note that my keys are not where I left them), but which is more likely to be true? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
woolytoad
Skeptic Friend
313 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 07:57:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And why would that necessarily be the case?
From Wikipedia:
quote:
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Which makes sense. If you need to make lots of assumptions to explain something, the more likely it is to be wrong. It'd also apply to the magnitude of those assumptions e.g. God exists vs. cars cannot travel at speeds approaching c so we can ignore relativistic effects. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 08:00:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Who says it is necessarily the case? Aside from millenia of practical experience, of course?
Sorry - I didn't mean to denigrate your mantra. I'd be more than interested in your definition of simplicity (and complexity) and the justification for an ontology which insists that the less complex a theory is, the more true it is, using the correspondence theory of truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
..., Occam's Razor tells me to look around some before I ...
I believe I noted its methodological value and, in particular, Popper's view. I also, by the way, agree that needless things are needless. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 08:09:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Sorry - I didn't mean to denigrate your mantra.
You "denigrated" my "mantra?" Please explain.quote:
I'd be more than interested in your definition of simplicity (and complexity) and the justification for an ontology which insists that the less complex a theory is, the more true it is, using the correspondence theory of truth.
Nice strawman.quote:
I believe I noted its methodological value and, in particular, Popper's view. I also, by the way, agree that needless things are needless.
Then what's your question? Occam's Razor is entirely about utility. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 10:07:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Who says it is necessarily the case? Aside from millenia of practical experience, of course?
Sorry - I didn't mean to denigrate your mantra. I'd be more than interested in your definition of simplicity (and complexity) and the justification for an ontology which insists that the less complex a theory is, the more true it is, using the correspondence theory of truth.
The way I read it, the less complicated an explianation is, the more likely it is to be true. Likely does not equate to absolute truth values. It speaks more to probability of something being true, not a means to determine truth. Like Storm's contention concerning ghosts, if one proposes a theory which relies on a complex series of events, unless someone proves out all those series of events the theory cannot hold.
I.E.
Ghosts run a ghostly printing press in the basement of an old building. vs. Cleanup staff move heavy iron barrels over a cement floor in a building 40" away from the stairwell where the "printing press" noises are heard.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:02:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The way I read it, the less complicated an explianation is, the more likely it is to be true.
Given more than one explanation which explains the evidence with equal power. That's an important clause in the Razor which is often overlooked. A general "the less complex, the better" idea is the over-simplification of this guideline which I was chiding markie for in the other thread mentioned in the OP. "Rain is what we get when the clouds are crying" is a pretty simple "theory," but it fails to explain much of the evidence we have about weather, so one doesn't even need to look to Occam's Razor to trim it away. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 11:06:01 [Permalink]
|
| I guess I feel that the statement while trying to reduce assumptions, is in fact creating them, due to the never ending problem of semantic understanding of the general public. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 12:42:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
If Occam's fails, not enough evidence has been gathered, one way or another, to make the call.
Conversely, if "enough evidence has been gathered", Occam's Razor is unnecessary.
Exactly right. I do not need Occams Razor to tell me that I will have a blue thumbnail and/or worse if I smack it with a three pound spalling hammer (been there, done that).
But I might need it in convoluted questions of god[s] and creation, and the evolution of rattlesnakes. Unfortunatly, I don't know enough about astrophysics to even try to apply it, but that doesn't mean that it won't work. It will still separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were, but perhaps to a finer degree.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
