Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory
    #4860164 -

just wondering what opinions anyone may have on Occam's Razor, feel free to check out the link to refresh the different views, but it seems to me that although it has it's applications, I am unsure of where they would be applied, and where they shouldn't even be considered.

The debate seems to be between the physical and the metaphysical (considering thoughts and perspectives fall under metaphysical).

for instance, when looking at something like a conspiracy, would Occam's Razor not just dismiss the entire concept by its fundamental theory?

Then also something more like the Big Bang, would Occam's Razor not favor religion, or is that an unfair use of Occam's Razor, considering it seems to be used when judging which of x arguments is the best one?
wikipedia entry

Quote:
a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine's tracks. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.


Quote:
Leonardo da Vinci (1452?1519) lived after Occam's time and has a variant of Occam's razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.



anti-razor:
Quote:
"If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on"


Quote:
"Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy" and "It is vain to do with fewer what requires more"



--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: kotik]
    #4860193 -

Occam's Razor essentially means making as few assumptions as necessary. For example, if you can adequately explain the universe without God, then there's no reason to assume God had anything to do with it.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: kotik]
    #4860385 -

You raise good points. What if your employees are trying to tell you that your managers are conspiring against you, because they over hear them talking, yet there is no factual information to validate those claims and so you dismiss it.

You could find yourself out of business, if it was true and you blew it off as fabricated conspiracies of disgruntled hyper imaginative employees.

What if your child says some scary dude is bugging him in his room at night and you wright it off with the razor as imagination, yet something like ghosts may actually be for real and your kid is being left along in the dark at night with a nasty one.

If something feels or looks real to other people, I think their feelings and perspectives count as subjectives facts to be taken into consideration.

Typically, I see people pull the razor out when they don't want to deal with something extraneous that may be (like the management conspiracy) or believe it to be possibly so (like the ghost terrorizing the kid).

And that's an answer to when using the razor can be useful, when you don't want to deal with or believe in something, just remove it with the razor!

People can just as easily fall into delusion because of its use. Say someone tells another their spouse is cheating on them and yet, that person can't prove it so they disbelieve it. What if the spouse is really cheating? They will be in delusion of the true reality.

Then again, maybe it is bull and they can become paranoid believing in something that is not really happening.

I'd rather error on the side of considering something to be so. If it being possibly true may mean something to me I would want to take action on, I will follow up with my own investigation into it and become more aware of the potential situation just in case.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: kotik]
    #4861029 -

kotik said:
for instance, when looking at something like a conspiracy, would Occam's Razor not just dismiss the entire concept by its fundamental theory?


I don't see why it would if there was evidence to support and demonstrate the conspiracy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: it stars saddam]
    #4861085 -

Quote:
I don't see why it would if there was evidence to support and demonstrate the conspiracy.


well to point out different types of conspiracies:

historical - all events have already taken place, and no new evidence is coming (unless by chance, but that would be something that can't be tested with modern means / technologies). for instance, crucifixion of jesus.. either all the stories mention it because it simply happened, or it's part of some vast conspiracy to protect his bloodline (or insert theory here).

subtle - probably the hardest to prove, it would really just be a group of people very slowly and subtly using their influence to change something for better or for worse in secret. For instance the great analogy with workers plotting to get their boss fired. They could all just very slightly do worse at work, and perhaps make small changes to the boss' report, like deleting / adding a few 0s, which could have been a mistake...

public - think 911 or the Okalahoma City bombing, where there are many detailed explanations that seem to gain complexity the more different things are linked to events, compared to a simple view of "terrorists did it," where also in this case many key items are no longer available.. like the damaged structures.

the JFK conspiracy would work well for public too.. i mean the evidence was that he got shot, and they found a shooter, who was also shot.. so how does that affect the application of the razor?

I suppose that some situations are not suitable for Occam's Razor, which brings me to my confusion.. when do you decide to use it, and how do you avoid using it on a subject that could be biased?

Edited by kotik (10/27/05 08:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4869729 -

gettinjiggywithit said:
You raise good points. What if your employees are trying to tell you that your managers are conspiring against you, because they over hear them talking, yet there is no factual information to validate those claims and so you dismiss it.

You could find yourself out of business, if it was true and you blew it off as fabricated conspiracies of disgruntled hyper imaginative employees.

What if your child says some scary dude is bugging him in his room at night and you wright it off with the razor as imagination, yet something like ghosts may actually be for real and your kid is being left along in the dark at night with a nasty one.

If something feels or looks real to other people, I think their feelings and perspectives count as subjectives facts to be taken into consideration.

Typically, I see people pull the razor out when they don't want to deal with something extraneous that may be (like the management conspiracy) or believe it to be possibly so (like the ghost terrorizing the kid).

And that's an answer to when using the razor can be useful, when you don't want to deal with or believe in something, just remove it with the razor!

People can just as easily fall into delusion because of its use. Say someone tells another their spouse is cheating on them and yet, that person can't prove it so they disbelieve it. What if the spouse is really cheating? They will be in delusion of the true reality.

Then again, maybe it is bull and they can become paranoid believing in something that is not really happening.

I'd rather error on the side of considering something to be so. If it being possibly true may mean something to me I would want to take action on, I will follow up with my own investigation into it and become more aware of the potential situation just in case.


Occam's is not rule that you have to apply fanatically. By your reasoning any paranoid claim warrants thorough investigation and thought which just isn't feasible.
I don't think anyone would apply the razor theory on your spouse example because he is either telling the truth or not which doesn't leave a whole lot of variables to begin with.

I think its more of a tool to use in scientific endeavors not everyday life.


--------------------
--------------------
We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4869777 -

gettinjiggywithit said:
I'd rather error on the side of considering something to be so. If it being possibly true may mean something to me I would want to take action on, I will follow up with my own investigation into it and become more aware of the potential situation just in case.


Occam's razor shouldn't be used in situations where it simple to gather more evidence to prove or disprove the theory. The razor simply tells you which theory is better given the present information, not which is correct.
Take the example of the burnt tree, if there were no witnesses and you don't have a time machine there is no way for you to figure out which theory is correct. You have to settle for figuring out which theory is better, using Occam's razor. However, in the examples you brought up there are ways to gather more information, thus appeal to Occam's razor is unjustified.

Edited by Zephid (10/30/05 08:36 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: Zephid]
    #4870222 -

thanks for the replies

Quote:
in the examples you brought up there are ways to gather more information, thus appeal to Occam's razor is unjustified.



so then Occam's razor must be avoided if the means to uncover more facts are not available?


--------------------
No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: Zephid]
    #4870583 -

Zephid said:
gettinjiggywithit said:
I'd rather error on the side of considering something to be so. If it being possibly true may mean something to me I would want to take action on, I will follow up with my own investigation into it and become more aware of the potential situation just in case.


Occam's razor shouldn't be used in situations where it simple to gather more evidence to prove or disprove the theory. The razor simply tells you which theory is better given the present information, not which is correct.
Take the example of the burnt tree, if there were no witnesses and you don't have a time machine there is no way for you to figure out which theory is correct. You have to settle for figuring out which theory is better, using Occam's razor. However, in the examples you brought up there are ways to gather more information, thus appeal to Occam's razor is unjustified.


exactly and i see people using occam's razor to dismiss alternate possibilities and affirm their beleifs which is silly because occam's razor doesn't prove anything, it simply tells which theory is more likely based on the limited information you have. you can't use it to rulte out other explanations. for example lets say your friend was captured by pirates and therefore did not arrive home from at work when you expected him. using occams razer you would be likley to conclude that he got stuck in traffic or stopped at the grocery store on the way or something because you would have no reason to assume he was captured by pirates. it doesn't make sense to assume some unlikely complex explanation when there are plenty of simpler more likely ones. (and virtually everyone knows this, we all use it in our day to day thinking. when someone is late do you assume they were captured by pirates or do you assume they didn't leave on time? see what i mean?) however, occam's razer says NOTHING about what actually happened. in reality there are any number of possible reasons your friend could be late from work. this is why you should not use occams razer as a bases for your belief in the absense of corroborating evidence. it doesn't tell you anything about how reality actually is, only helps you pick your "best bet" from the information youve got. the more information youre missing the less valuable the razer becomes.

Edited by Deviate (10/30/05 12:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Occam's Razor theory vs Anti-Razor theory [Re: kotik]
    #4872571 -

kotik said:
so then Occam's razor must be avoided if the means to uncover more facts are not available?


You have it backwards. Occam's razor should only be used when the means to uncover more facts are not available. The razor should be used when you have all the information you can gather, and there are multiple theories that fit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Occam's Razor
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,843 31 03/12/02 05:22 PM
by Swami
* do you think that anti-gravity propulsion is possible?
( 1 2 all )		 blaze2 3,969 37 06/21/03 02:29 AM
by Rhizoid
* Time Travel
( 1 2 3 all )		 Starchild 3,663 55 09/12/05 02:18 PM
by Khaunshar
* String Theory is messed up! nubious 2,876 19 09/15/09 10:09 PM
by DieCommie
* The One (Uni) Fact. The Uni (1) Theory Explained. Armageddon 2,605 13 06/08/11 08:10 PM
by NikoK
* Why do we exist? How? - A compilation of theories and ideology
( 1 2 3 all )		 PerfectChaos 4,799 50 07/22/05 12:22 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 dr0mni 12,454 103 05/17/09 02:49 AM
by Darwinian
* Occam's Razor
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 TrippinNinjaBuddha 4,813 67 11/05/06 01:07 PM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,050 topic views. 0 members, 55 guests and 39 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.