Ockham's Razor

[Freethinker]

Huh? What was misleading? I wasn't talking about "intentionally" hiding facts.

the two hypotheses are in fact valid competing theories of why Aunt Sylvia goes to the sushi place... with the proviso that the last line... should be left off because its data intended to be added after the fact to show that Hypothesis A could be proven false.

You should try to remember what you actually posted previously. Then you can go back and eidit it before it comes back to bite you...

 

Yes you did specifically state that you INTENTIONALLY were hiding facts. That you first claim

the two hypotheses are in fact valid competing theories

to later state that this is only true if we do not get all of the info you are privy to.

 

And we find such intellectual dishonesty is not only intentional, but repetitive, part of yourt MO as it were. Once more your own posts providing all the evidence needed.

Oh and there's the third issue of its source, which is indicated by its original name: "Law of Parsimony"

As with the first time I responded to this, I highlighted (with bold) the specific part of the post which is flatly incorrect. And so you don't miss it this time it was the word

 

"original"

 

But dealing with FACTS seems too much for you, instead your PRETEND I questioned

I apologize profusely for my horrendous faux pas of translating "principle" into "law," as we all *know* that there is no similarity whatsoever between those words.

Yep instead of reponding to what I ACTUALLY posted, instead of having the integrity to admit your error, you try to pretend the discussion is about something else.

That was clearly intentionally misleading of me.

Yes it was. And it is very obvious.

[Freethinker]

Show us ANYWHERE that states that Ockham's Razor was ORIGINALLY named the "Law of Parsimony".

www.dictionary.com

 

Actually, it is quite commonly referred to as the Law of Parsimony.

OK, maybe it's just me. I had thought that the word "Originally" was fairly common and well understood. I had no idea that so many people would confuse it with meanings like "quite commonly referred to".

 

Though it does seem to only be a problem for people that can't find VALID arguments.

[pgrmdave]

Freethinker, can you not think of a case where a simpler solution is not always correct? How about Newtonian physics, much simpler, but does not hold true in our world. The simplest solution is only the best when you have all relevant information. I think that really, both sides of this discussion are saying the same thing, but twisting it a different way. Freethinker, you are arguing against creating more variables than necessary, especially in the case of inventing a deity to solve a problem, it only creates the problem of a diety. And Buffy, you seem to be arguing that all necessary facts need to be gathered, because without them, the world seems much simpler than it really is.

[Freethinker]

Freethinker, can you not think of a case where a simpler solution is not always correct? How about Newtonian physics, much simpler, but does not hold true in our world.

You know it really gets tiresome when I have to spend all my time reposting the same corrections over and over only to have others ignore what is actually posted and make stuff up that I then have to repost the same thing over again to correct. My first post on this was quite clear:

a principle stated by William of Ockham, that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem)...

 

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."

Followed by

It is NOT "Simplisity" as such. It is number of agents.

and then:

Ockham's Razor is ONLY applicable, as I stated in my post "when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

 

Again with "simpler" being defined as "fewer agents".

I tried to cover what you claim here by posting

They were NOT "equally valid theories".

Just as "Newtonian physics" is not an "equally valid theory". (though it also DOES hold true at it's own level)

 

So NO, I can't "think of a case where a simpler solution is not always correct", if we bother to deal with SIMPLER in the manner which I went out of my way to clarify from the very beginning. And obviously no one else can either. Though none have the integrity to admit it.

[motherengine]

question: if ockham's theorem is applied to forensic science and puts a man in jail because the least variables are connected between him and the crime yet evidence is later brought forth that exhonerates him and reveals a murder plot with many more variables how does this [if at all] relate to the validity of the razor?

[pgrmdave]

Okay FT, I get your point and see where I was wrong - but I cannot think of any two equally valid theories that describe the same phenomenon. If I can't think of two valid ones, then how am I to test whether or not Ockham's Razor is correct?

[Tormod]

Okay FT, I get your point and see where I was wrong - but I cannot think of any two equally valid theories that describe the same phenomenon. If I can't think of two valid ones, then how am I to test whether or not Ockham's Razor is correct?

 

Dave, here's an example:

 

1) The Earth stands still and the entire solar system revolves around it. This fits with observation, although some strange "loops" occur in the orbits of the planets.

 

2) The Earth is in orbit around the Sun, as is the rest of the solar system. This fits with observation and solves the "loop" problem.

 

Calculating the loops in the first example is a nightmare, but it was done many times all the way back to the Greeks to "prove" that the Earth was the center of the universe. The second example requires no such trickery, especially after Kepler showed that the planetary orbits are not cirular but elliptic. Ockham's razor tells us that alternative 2 is the more likely.

 

Just an example.

[lindagarrette]

Okay FT, I get your point and see where I was wrong - but I cannot think of any two equally valid theories that describe the same phenomenon. If I can't think of two valid ones, then how am I to test whether or not Ockham's Razor is correct?

Good point. If a theory is not correct, it is not valid.

[lindagarrette]

question: if ockham's theorem is applied to forensic science and puts a man in jail because the least variables are connected between him and the crime yet evidence is later brought forth that exhonerates him and reveals a murder plot with many more variables how does this [if at all] relate to the validity of the razor?

The razor principle applies to science and testable evidence, not to legal premises. If we alwys had proof of a person's guilt or innocense, then there would be no need for trial by judge or jury.

[Freethinker]

question: if ockham's theorem is applied to forensic science and puts a man in jail because the least variables are connected between him and the crime yet evidence is later brought forth that exhonerates him and reveals a murder plot with many more variables how does this [if at all] relate to the validity of the razor?

One more time (hopefully only ONE MORE time) "equally valid theory".

 

In youir example we are NOT evaluating two "equally valid theor(ies)". We are FIRST drawing a conclusion based on then available information compared to a LATER evaluation with MORE information.

 

Further, Legal/ Court processes are NOT the same as Scientific Methodology. If it were then "Innocent till proven guilty" would translate to "Factual till proven otherwise".

[Freethinker]

Okay FT, I get your point and see where I was wrong - but I cannot think of any two equally valid theories that describe the same phenomenon. If I can't think of two valid ones, then how am I to test whether or not Ockham's Razor is correct?

One example was given in my first post. That of cosmology and ether. Another I later gave was Nature causing Nature RE God causing nature. (We could argue equality of the Nature/ God hypo's.)

 

Perhaps one that seems to be gaining popularity is the suggestion that life on earth was caused by intentional planting by some extraterestrial intellegence. Ockham's razor compares "life exists on earth" and the two explanations, nature on earth and external interference. The Razor allows us to ask what value the additional agent adds. All we wind up with is the next question of "where did that life come from". We have not provided any additional understandings and have multiplied agents/ complexity.

[motherengine]

Further, Legal/ Court processes are NOT the same as Scientific Methodology. If it were then "Innocent till proven guilty" would translate to "Factual till proven otherwise".

 

factual until proven otherwise, huh? sounds like a better system to me. too bad we are not judged by twelve computers instead of peers.

 

of course i could rearrange the propsed question so that both theories existed but the simpler one was chosen though your second note seems to regect this idea altogether. i would only point out that your answer implies ockham's razor should be limited to non-behavioral problems. i was referring to the foresic process which is a scientific methodology and though the apllication of it to discern the facts concerning a murder involve human motives i am not sure how different human behavior is from the activities of its source [ie nature and the universe].

 

forgive my ignorance on the subject but i believe this is the universal starting point at which anyone learns about something.

[alxian]

that and some related knowledge so you don't have to be spoon fed..

 

factual until proven otherwise, huh?

isn't this written on the 20th level of the pyramid on the american dollar?

 

// i meant me..

[motherengine]

sorry i was not asking to be spoon fed. i think my question was valid and i have gained some knowledge by the response given (even though it is more a brush off than an answer).

[motherengine]

Perhaps one that seems to be gaining popularity is the suggestion that life on earth was caused by intentional planting by some extraterestrial intellegence. Ockham's razor compares "life exists on earth" and the two explanations, nature on earth and external interference. The Razor allows us to ask what value the additional agent adds. All we wind up with is the next question of "where did that life come from". We have not provided any additional understandings and have multiplied agents/ complexity.

 

based on this statement it seems to me that ockham's razor is more a cleaning agent than a way to find facts. i am sorry if that sounds like an attack i am just being honest. how is ockham's razor effective at providing evidence or proof of something? or is it just a way to simplify things and weed out ridiculous or questionable claims?

[pgrmdave]

Here's a question - how does dark matter and dark energy not violate ockham's razor?

[Buffy]

Here's a question - how does dark matter and dark energy not violate ockham's razor?

Because theories that do not incorporate them are not valid theories. They were never valid theories and if you had applied Occam's Razor prior to there being proof that they deposed the simpler theory, you would be misusing it for purposes that it was not intended. Occam's Razor may only be used to once the validity of theories are verified absolutely and they may be compared ex post facto. Even if you are a Nobel Lauriate, you may not under any circumstances use the term "Occam's Razor" to refer to the process of determining prior to the knowledge of all facts that the simpler theory "is probably" the correct one. You have been warned.

 

Cheers,

Buffy