Ockham's Razor

[TINNY]

What is the significance of Ockham's razor?

[Buffy]

It has no significance whatsoever if its being used by an Intelligent Design advocate to argue that the existence of an Intelligent Designer is the simplest explanation for a physical phenomena and is therefore the most likely explanation... :hyper:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TeleMad]

What is the significance of Ockham's razor?

 

It leads to what it supposedly the better/best explanation. It's a rule of thumb for filtering out possible explanations, leaving only the one with the fewest and simplest assumptions.

[Thelonious]

What is the significance of Ockham's razor?

 

Occam's Razor itself has no real significance. It is a philosophical principle that every scientist should bear in mind. However, it is by no means a scientific law or theory that should exclusively guide the scientific process.

[Freethinker]

Ahem, ahem, let me clear my throat. You might want to sit back and get comfortable. I would never give sauch short shrift to such a cornerstone of logic science.

 

Now then:

 

William of Ockham, also called William Ockham (Ockham also spelled " Occam") (1285-1347/49), was a medeival monk.. (a scholastic)

 

Ockham's razor, also spelled "Occam's razor", but also called "law of economy" or "law of parsimony", is a principle stated by William of Ockham, that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). This principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durand de Saint-Pourcain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity. Galileo did something similar by defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens, and other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles. It is called "Ockham's razor" because he mentioned the principle so frequently and employed it so sharply. For instance, he used it

 

1.to dispense with relations which he held to be nothing distinct from their foundation in things;

2.with efficient causality, which he tended to view merely as regular succession;

3.with motion, which is merely the reappearance of a thing in a different place;

4.with psychological powers distinct for each mode of sense;

 

Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

 

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is,

 

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

 

In physics we use the razor to cut away metaphysical concepts. The canonical example is Einstein's theory of special relativity compared with Lorentz's theory that ruler's contract and clocks slow down when in motion through the Ether. Einstein's equations for transforming space-time are the same as Lorentz's equations for transforming rulers and clocks, but Einstein and Poincaré recognised that the Ether could not be detected according to the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. By Ockham's razor it had to be eliminated.

 

The principle has also been used to justify uncertainty in quantum mechanics. Heisenberg deduced his uncertainty principle from the quantum nature of light and the effect of measurement.

 

Stephen Hawking explains in A Brief History of Time: "We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Ockham's razor and cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed."

 

But uncertainty and the non-existence of the ether can not be deduced from Ockham's Razor alone. It can separate two theories which make the same predictions but does not rule out other theories which might make a different prediction. Empirical evidence is also required and Ockham himself argued for empiricism, not against it.

 

Ernst Mach advocated a version of Ockham's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Taken to its logical conclusion this philosophy becomes positivism; the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all. Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics. It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on Brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism.

 

This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible." Aristotle went too far in believing that experiment and observation were unnecessary.

 

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute. Dirac was very successful with his method. He constructed the relativistic field equation for the electron and used it to predict the positron. But he was not suggesting that physics should be based on mathematical beauty alone. He fully appreciated the need for experimental verification.

 

The final word falls to Einstein, himself a master of the quotable one liner. He warned,

 

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[Turtle]

Ah ha! Support for my abstract Katabatak math(see thread of same name). In the case of efficiency, & in view of the fact the K function is congruent to the modulus, by Okkam's razor I have the better hand. One last observation:when the simplest abstraction fails, more is lost than with the more complex abstraction. The razor cuts both ways. :hyper:

 

Discuss...

[Thelonious]

Ah ha! Support for my abstract Katabatak math(see thread of same name). In the case of efficiency, & in view of the fact the K function is congruent to the modulus, by Okkam's razor I have the better hand.

 

Careful. Occam's Razor cannot be used for any means of validation. It should only be used as a personal guideline that one prescribes to.

[Turtle]

Sure it can; I just did. :hyper:

[Thelonious]

Sure it can; I just did. :hyper:

 

But in reality it proves nothing. Occam's Razor is not a scientific law or theory, or anything of the sort; its accuracy is immeasurable. Just hold onto it in your heart as an ideal.

[Buffy]

Thelonious is right. Its a razor. If you're not careful, you'll cut yourself.....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Turtle]

I am in agreement Thelonious; it means nothing. Moreover, I think most such contrite little witticisms(sp) as Ockam's razor serve as excuses for not knowing a thing & not knowing to say you don't know. :hyper:

[Freethinker]

Careful. Occam's Razor cannot be used for any means of validation. It should only be used as a personal guideline that one prescribes to.

True and False.

 

Ockham's Razor is NOT a validation tool. It is a COMPARISON tool. It's usage accuracy comes when COMPARING MULTIPLE explanations.

 

However it's application is not in any way restricted to "a personal guideline that one prescribes to". It has well documented accurate application in such comparisons. There is not a single example of it being wrong when correctly applied. The only variable regarding "a personal guideline" is in an individual not using correct guidelines in applying it.

[Freethinker]

But in reality it proves nothing. Occam's Razor is not a scientific law or theory, or anything of the sort; its accuracy is immeasurable. Just hold onto it in your heart as an ideal.

OK, it's simple to prove. Show us ANY example of a correct application of Ockham's Razor that results in an incorrect selection.

 

ANY!

 

Well?

[Buffy]

OK, it's simple to prove. Show us ANY example of a correct application of Ockham's Razor that results in an incorrect selection.

 

ANY!

 

Well?

If it were always true, there'd be no need for the word "counterintuitive" in the English language! :hyper:

 

"I will leave finding counter-examples as an exercise for the reader...."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tormod]

Show us ANY example of a correct application of Ockham's Razor that results in an incorrect selection.

 

LOL. Who decides what is a "correct" application of Ockham's Razor?

[Freethinker]

LOL. Who decides what is a "correct" application of Ockham's Razor?

Why ME of course! :-)

 

If in fact such examples exist, they will be self evident.

 

If they don't, we will not see any presented. Which so far is the case. Shows that those that protest so far lack any support for their protestation. They want OR to be rejected out of hand, but not for any VALID reasons. Perhaps just because they do not like the results of applying it to their favorite fallacies?

[pgrmdave]

Is Ockham's Razor objective? Is there a definite way to judge simplicity?