 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in General Chat. |
| User | Post |
| Skydude Posts: 274/2607 |
Well, I didn't EXPLICITLY respond to that, but I thought I did make a note of that, effectively, when I mentioned that "the use of "simpler" is not as ambiguous as you or he make it out to be"...the two things to consider are that firstly, the idea of simplicity is really limited, at least in the most limited sense of the principle, to the number of assumptions that need to be made. But more importantly, since in some philosophical principles particularly it may be hard to quantify that, the principle in itself is more a general guideline than any kind of actual rule.
So basically, what I'm saying is that by looking at the degree of simplicity in as much detail as this discussion implies you and/or he are necessarily overextending the bounds of the principle to much more solid matters than it was meant to be used for. |
| Ziff Posts: 674/1800 |
The first snippit of that quote was where I did what you said. My actual post was confronting Kutske on this whole idea of "simplicity being in the eye of the beholder". |
| Skydude Posts: 243/2607 |
I did read the quote...and all I really got out of it was what I was responding to  |
| Silvershield Posts: 56/587 |
Also related to scientific parsimony, a principle that holds a simpler theory as superior to a more complicated one, given that they are both equally correct and their only constrasting factor is the level of complexity. |
| Ailure Posts: 933/2602 |
The way you made that quote was kind of confusing Ziff.  Or at least, requires some thinking. 
Edit: Note, I was not trying to be sarcastic... merely pointing out that the post confused me at first. :/ |
| Ziff Posts: 668/1800 |
I suppose you didn't read the quoted part of the post... |
| Skydude Posts: 240/2607 |
Ockham's Razor is one of the most commonly misused principles. Basically, it says not that the simpler explanation is better, but that given two equally predictive theories, the simpler one is more likely the correct one. Moreover, the use of "simpler" is not as ambiguous as you or he make it out to be; a translation of the original is "shave off [omit] unnecessary entities in explanations" (hence the razor). Basically, don't make too many assumptions.
It's also an overused principle, in cases where it's hard to enumerate the exact assumptions. It really doesn't say too much at all in a scientific sense; it's more of a general guideline, along the lines of "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" |
| Ziff Posts: 662/1800 |
Originally posted by Kutske As per Kutske's wish I'm going to address this issue. Simply, no. You're taking relativism to an extreme. Ockham's Razor is used in the application of philosophical and scientific methodologies. However, this is indeed a scientific query which you are personalizing. Science and philosophy (to at least an extent) is intended to be objective. Subjectivism can come in at points (primarily in philosophy). |
