Talk:Occam's razor/Archive1

Something
Something to build on. I hope someone more scientifically knowledgeable than I would write a bit about what, if anything, the principle means in the modern world. It should probably be tied especially to the ID debate. --AKjeldsen 13:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

I was about 14 (1958!) when my science teacher first mentiond O's R - she was probably the first self proclaimed atheist I'd ever met. She hated the RE teacher and called her, to her face, "a peddler of mumbo-jumbo". Unfortunately she didn't last in the English education system which wasn't so tolerant then - she left during my final year,apparently (though unconfirmed) because she refused to take a part in morning (religious) assembly. One up for the godbotherers! Keep me out of it!  14:38, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

I generally don't like the modern day "interpretation", because "simpler" is completely undefined. What is simpler? What makes one theory simpler than another? Certainly Newtonian physics is simpler than General Relativity, but we know it to be wrong (slightly). The best modern day rendition would probably be "don't invent things unless you have to." --Eira yay! 21:50, 12 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think one version of "simpler" might be "fewer assumptions". Kind of the same as what you said, only using fewer words ;) human  18:31, 13 December 2007 (EST)
 * Oh yeah, that's certainly the definition of "simpler" that it's intended to mean, but a lot of people whiz right over that meaning, and go into what they believe is simpler. "What's simpler to believe, that the world all just flew together by a fluke of random chance, or that a designer created it?"  See, that's what I'm talking about, and I have heard that argument fairly often. --Eira yay!  03:27, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Occam's razor actually can be interpreted as suggesting the absence of God. Simply: When you explain things atheistically, you use things present in the material universe. When you explain things theistically, you use things present in the material universe (the most important thing to keep in mind here is the fact that theistic explanation does not dismiss the 'presence' of things. It dismisses the non-divine 'mechanisms' through things happen.) and a God. And according to Occam's Razor, that's one object too many in your explanation. Lordkhuzdul 07:19, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * I think we have something like that on one of our refutations of some drivel about atheism (almost certainly from CP)... Ironically, Occam (Ockham?) was a monk.Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 07:25, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * Well, to be honest, he didn't exactly like his theory when he noticed it can be interpreted like this. Lordkhuzdul 16:41, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * In his day, with no big bang, no law of gravity, no theory of evolution... God was the simplest hypothesis that met all the facts.Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 18:26, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * One also has to consider that Ockham worked in the Scholasticist tradition, so in his version of Ockham's Razor, the Authorities (such as the Bible) were a perfectly valid source of facts, along with reason and evidence. -- 18:40, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * Either way it hardly matters much as it's hardly an irrefutable law of the universe. It's just a guideline really. It's open to as many interpretations as something like the Bible. In Contact for example, that guy tries to say that Occam's Razor said that the machine was built by a human design, but considering how difficult that kind of conspiracy would be, you could easily say that the razor points the other way.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 18:45, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * Moreover, Occam's Razor only applies if there's no other way of choosing between the two explanations. If one actually explains things better or explains more things, even if it's more complicated, it's the better explanation. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 02:57, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 * Strictly, yes. But you can still use it as a judge between quality if you like to think about it that way. Technically, ID explains everything much better because everything we don't understand gets shoved under the banner "Godddit" and is thus explained by the theory (it's scientifically unsound and philosophically unfulfilling but it's unfortunately a case of "I'd rather be happy than right"). BUT, ID requires the massive assumption of the existence of the designer, either by circular reasoning or begging the question, whereas Natrual Selection doesn't make such massive assumptions. But still, you're using Occam's razor by interpretation rather than by an outright rule (you can then thoroughly argue until the cows come home whether the lack of a designer put forward by evolution by natural selection is an assumption too, no doubt that has already been done). I think we're all agreed that it's a nice tool and a benchmark to use, but it's not the be all and end all of an arugment.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 05:03, 1 December 2008 (EST)

For your uninfo
Occam's razor usually sucks (just for your uninfo)! Occam's razor is good in the cases where Occam used it, but nowadays it is used for this and that, for example comparing two unequal teories predicting different things, having separate logical structures where one or the other happenstance contain more or less logical clauses. I think Occam never had a razor, but instead let the beard grow, but that he certainly reasoned according to lines that cannot be called anything than his eponymous razor. Just so you know it, that is. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the problem. Most people seem to neglect that subtle factor in parsimony of "all other things being equal". And given our continually improving ability to test and predict, and new technologies giving us better access to evidence, the concept is rarely even required any more. ADK ...I'll model your pool table! 17:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)