(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		11-01-24 12:04 AM
0 users currently in General Chat.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - Ockham's Razor New poll | |
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 02-23-06 11:55 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Kutske
PSA Ummm...Occem's Razor, when used by Copernicus, Kepler and others gave us the current solar-system model. The simpler of the two theories (one being that everything is arranged by an unseen force into perfect Ptolemic circles and spheres or that an unseen force has allowed for chaotic, but controlled system of gravitational movement) was the latter, in this case

And you've just illustrated my point perfectly; that Occem's Razor is non-applicable in any case (and therefore useless to cite) because complexity is relative -- any two theories could be presented such that A is simple and B is complex, or such that A is complex and B is simple, depending on the presenter and audience. But let's not detract the topic further off...topic. I'll be happy to debate the credibility of eponymous adages in General Chat if you wish.


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).
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6738 days
Last view: 6738 days
Posted on 02-23-06 04:09 PM Link | Quote
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
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 02-23-06 04:33 PM Link | Quote
I suppose you didn't read the quoted part of the post...
Ailure

Mr. Shine
I just want peace...








Since: 11-17-05
From: Sweden

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 02-23-06 05:54 PM Link | Quote
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. :/

(edited by Catfish on 02-23-06 04:54 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6477 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 02-23-06 05:55 PM Link | Quote
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.
Skydude

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6738 days
Last view: 6738 days
Posted on 02-23-06 06:47 PM Link | Quote
I did read the quote...and all I really got out of it was what I was responding to
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 02-24-06 03:54 AM Link | Quote
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

Armos Knight








Since: 02-18-06
From: Stanford, CA

Last post: 6738 days
Last view: 6738 days
Posted on 02-24-06 08:55 AM Link | Quote
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.
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - General Chat - Ockham's Razor |


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.017 seconds; used 385.27 kB (max 468.68 kB)