Freethinker Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 fof course i could rearrange the propsed question so that both theories existed but the simpler one was chosenOK, it's a deal. You submit the two rearranged in such as fashion that Ockham's Razor would choose the other one. Thanks for offering. It will be an interesting experiment. i would only point out that your answer implies ockham's razor should be limited to non-behavioral problems.My response was directly related to a CRIMINAL situation presented, NOT a cognitive one. 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 motivesIf it was SCIENCE, it would be "judged by twelve computers instead of" randomly selected jurors. Look how well forensic science did in convicting OJ. Unlike actual science, forensic's data winds up in the hands of the uniformed for ultimate determination. Could OR be used in other cognitive sciences? I don't see why not. It would seem to be what is used in medical science also. Given a set of symptoms, with multiple possible theories/ explanations/ diagnosises's, (diagnosi?) doctors typically strat by treating the less invasive solution first. forgive my ignorance on the subject but i believe this is the universal starting point at which anyone learns about something.Ignorace is easily cured, stupid is forever. OK, not always easily. But always worth the effort. I'm anxious to learn from your offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 factual until proven otherwise, huh? isn't this written on the 20th level of the pyramid on the american dollar?I can't read anything that small. But you can read about it Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 If it was SCIENCE, it would be "judged by twelve computers instead of" randomly selected jurors. Look how well forensic science did in convicting OJ. Unlike actual science, forensic's data winds up in the hands of the uniformed for ultimate determination. are you actually saying that forensic science is not an actual science because it can be ineffective in swaying the minds of jurors. that has got to be one of the weakest arguments i have ever heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 OK, it's a deal. You submit the two rearranged in such as fashion that Ockham's Razor would choose the other one. Thanks for offering. It will be an interesting experiment. how about this instead: 1- mass violence is caused by human behavior. 2- mass violence is caused by human behavior inspired by religious teachings. apply ockham's razor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Ignorace is easily cured, stupid is forever. OK, not always easily. But always worth the effort. I'm anxious to learn from your offer. why are you so disrepectful brother. even you tagline is a bitter mockery. i came here to communicate not prove my self worth by insulting others who i see as less intellegent than myself. kind of sad if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 how about this instead: 1- mass violence is caused by human behavior. 2- mass violence is caused by human behavior inspired by religious teachings. apply ockham's razor. This is not a valid approach. Those are not opposites. The second is a specific version of the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 why are you so disrepectful brother. even you tagline is a bitter mockery. i came here to communicate not prove my self worth by insulting others who i see as less intellegent than myself. kind of sad if you ask me. mother engine, I respectfully suggest you try to follow your gut feeling and keep communicating. Nobody is asking you to prove your worth. If you feel insulted, either use the reputation feature, report the post, or talk to one of the admins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 fair enough tormod, thank for the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 This is not a valid approach. Those are not opposites. The second is a specific version of the first. yes i admit this was a pot shot, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Holbling Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 What is the significance of Ockham's razor? I just joined so i'm a bit late to the party in this thread, but i wrote an essay on this subject that might help answer your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 Nice essay Hugo! A little heavy with passive tense, but you put the idea across well. I hold with your conclusion, ie. the razor is a limiting unreliable distraction. It occured to me to start calling Goodel's last theorem, 'Goodel's Hammer'; Hammer beats Razor? :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.