The Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary asumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 6:03 pmYes, it is questionable to determine the relative importance of speculations, because it is so subjective. Here, on this forum people disagree so much and that is likely to be related to the way in which each sees what is important very differently. If the various issues are stripped back to the bones there might be nothing left, or no backbone because it would have crumbled away in the process in many considerations. Even amongst the professional philosophers there has always been so much disagreement. It may be easier for people who are materialists or realists to agree because they may see so much as being nonsense, but others may think that what was or is important has been obliterated.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:13 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 10:55 am I commented on your choice of language, that seemed to present this speculation as something more, calling it "relative certainty" when it is just guesswork, and recommending Occam's Razor as though it is a tool that can derive certainty from speculation. I think you also suggested that we use the Razor as an excuse to discard theories, guesses, and speculations without logical grounds for doing so.
All this is not speculation, it's an exercise in disguise, trying to make speculation look like something it's not: certainty.I know you said that. But you also said this:
JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 9:19 am It is true that Occam's Razor is one important approach because getting irrelevant information out of the way is part of the process However, this process may in itself be complex because one person may see the essentials differently, as there is not always consensus about relative importance or of interpretations.I don't think it's possible to determine the "relative importance" of speculations. And I think you give the Razor more credit than it deserves.
How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Can you give an example of how you think it can be applied to a specific idea or aspect of life or philosophy. That is because I find it rather vague and abstract when I have read about it.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pmThe Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary asumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 6:03 pmYes, it is questionable to determine the relative importance of speculations, because it is so subjective. Here, on this forum people disagree so much and that is likely to be related to the way in which each sees what is important very differently. If the various issues are stripped back to the bones there might be nothing left, or no backbone because it would have crumbled away in the process in many considerations. Even amongst the professional philosophers there has always been so much disagreement. It may be easier for people who are materialists or realists to agree because they may see so much as being nonsense, but others may think that what was or is important has been obliterated.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:13 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 10:55 am I commented on your choice of language, that seemed to present this speculation as something more, calling it "relative certainty" when it is just guesswork, and recommending Occam's Razor as though it is a tool that can derive certainty from speculation. I think you also suggested that we use the Razor as an excuse to discard theories, guesses, and speculations without logical grounds for doing so.
All this is not speculation, it's an exercise in disguise, trying to make speculation look like something it's not: certainty.I know you said that. But you also said this:
JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 9:19 am It is true that Occam's Razor is one important approach because getting irrelevant information out of the way is part of the process However, this process may in itself be complex because one person may see the essentials differently, as there is not always consensus about relative importance or of interpretations.I don't think it's possible to determine the "relative importance" of speculations. And I think you give the Razor more credit than it deserves.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
A good example is applying it to the philosophy of mind. The assumption that fundamental, inherent duality exists, seems to be unnecessary.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:14 amCan you give an example of how you think it can be applied to a specific idea or aspect of life or philosophy. That is because I find it rather vague and abstract when I have read about it.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pmThe Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary asumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 6:03 pmYes, it is questionable to determine the relative importance of speculations, because it is so subjective. Here, on this forum people disagree so much and that is likely to be related to the way in which each sees what is important very differently. If the various issues are stripped back to the bones there might be nothing left, or no backbone because it would have crumbled away in the process in many considerations. Even amongst the professional philosophers there has always been so much disagreement. It may be easier for people who are materialists or realists to agree because they may see so much as being nonsense, but others may think that what was or is important has been obliterated.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:13 am
I know you said that. But you also said this:
I don't think it's possible to determine the "relative importance" of speculations. And I think you give the Razor more credit than it deserves.
So the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can. All these philosophies (even idealism and materialism) are dualistic in one or more ways, overt or covert.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
But, 'the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can' may be a great loss because there is so much to be learned from it. At what point, would ideas be drawn from and would it simply go into the matters of psychology rather than philosophy? On what basis would the ideas be cut off.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:19 amA good example is applying it to the philosophy of mind. The assumption that fundamental, inherent duality exists, seems to be unnecessary.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:14 amCan you give an example of how you think it can be applied to a specific idea or aspect of life or philosophy. That is because I find it rather vague and abstract when I have read about it.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pmThe Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary asumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 6:03 pm
Yes, it is questionable to determine the relative importance of speculations, because it is so subjective. Here, on this forum people disagree so much and that is likely to be related to the way in which each sees what is important very differently. If the various issues are stripped back to the bones there might be nothing left, or no backbone because it would have crumbled away in the process in many considerations. Even amongst the professional philosophers there has always been so much disagreement. It may be easier for people who are materialists or realists to agree because they may see so much as being nonsense, but others may think that what was or is important has been obliterated.
So the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can. All these philosophies (even idealism and materialism) are dualistic in one or more ways, overt or covert.
Would you believe what book I have started reading, Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'? It is different from the movement of phenomenology, which I find to be extremely useful in its own right. It can be a case of trying to read so many of the writers of the past, especially in connection with materialism and idealism leads to getting bogged down, but it is such a big area and to throw some of the big names in the bin would be murdering philosophy. Would Dennett go in the bin and what about Carl Jung? Jung is not part of the philosophy of mind in the conventional sense, but he had a model of the human psyche. So, with the razor, who would decide what should be cut or kept, in understanding the mind?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
That's a massive topic, maybe could be condensed to the size of a book.. I meant that all the dualistic assumptions, beliefs, implications go into the bin, when we are talking about the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/reality. The thinking, life experience of almost all Western philosophers and almost all Westerners is based, interwoven with them, on all levels, in every way. It's like the backbone of Western thinking.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:22 amBut, 'the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can' may be a great loss because there is so much to be learned from it. At what point, would ideas be drawn from and would it simply go into the matters of psychology rather than philosophy? On what basis would the ideas be cut off.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:19 amA good example is applying it to the philosophy of mind. The assumption that fundamental, inherent duality exists, seems to be unnecessary.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:14 amCan you give an example of how you think it can be applied to a specific idea or aspect of life or philosophy. That is because I find it rather vague and abstract when I have read about it.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pm
The Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary asumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.
So the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can. All these philosophies (even idealism and materialism) are dualistic in one or more ways, overt or covert.
Would you believe what book I have started reading, Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'? It is different from the movement of phenomenology, which I find to be extremely useful in its own right. It can be a case of trying to read so many of the writers of the past, especially in connection with materialism and idealism leads to getting bogged down, but it is such a big area and to throw some of the big names in the bin would be murdering philosophy. Would Dennett go in the bin and what about Carl Jung? Jung is not part of the philosophy of mind in the conventional sense, but he had a model of the human psyche. So, with the razor, who would decide what should be cut or kept, in understanding the mind?
But then most of the other insights of the Western philosophers are be brought back and reinterpreted. And even many of the dualistic insights, ways of thinking are brought back, and re-established as the dualistic "everyday" philosophy of consciousness, once we understood its true nondual fundamental nature.
Eventually there also may arise the need to almost completely separate the fundamental understanding from the everyday existentialist philosophy, so one begins to lead a sort of intellectual double life.
Jung was talking about dividing the individual human brain/mind into conscious and unconscious etc., that's largely untouched by the above.
Dennett lands in the bin even without the help of the razor. But then, their multiple drafts model isn't bad, when reinterpreted in the right context.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Of course, the topic of the philosophy of mind is such a large one in it's own right. I am not a great fan of Dennett, although I find some of his writing worth reading. That may be where it gets difficult applying the razor because it is hard to sift out the gems and treasures amidst the clutter and chaos. It is a bit like tidying up or deciding what to keep or throw away when moving. A couple of people have thought that I should throw most of my philosophy books away, especially when I moved 2 years ago, and I am glad I didn't because they are useful on this site. If the razor was applied too strongly half the posts on the site, or even the site itself might be thrown in the bin by some people, which might be sad for us. I would keep rescue Jung from the bonfire straight away as apart from speaking of the division between the conscious and the subconscious he was one of the last systemic writers, with his great volumes of writings, the Collected Works and several other books.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:41 amThat's a massive topic, maybe could be condensed to the size of a book.. I meant that all the dualistic assumptions, beliefs, implications go into the bin, when we are talking about the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/reality. The thinking, life experience of almost all Western philosophers and almost all Westerners is based, interwoven with them, on all levels, in every way. It's like the backbone of Western thinking.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:22 amBut, 'the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can' may be a great loss because there is so much to be learned from it. At what point, would ideas be drawn from and would it simply go into the matters of psychology rather than philosophy? On what basis would the ideas be cut off.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:19 amA good example is applying it to the philosophy of mind. The assumption that fundamental, inherent duality exists, seems to be unnecessary.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:14 am
Can you give an example of how you think it can be applied to a specific idea or aspect of life or philosophy. That is because I find it rather vague and abstract when I have read about it.
So the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can. All these philosophies (even idealism and materialism) are dualistic in one or more ways, overt or covert.
Would you believe what book I have started reading, Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'? It is different from the movement of phenomenology, which I find to be extremely useful in its own right. It can be a case of trying to read so many of the writers of the past, especially in connection with materialism and idealism leads to getting bogged down, but it is such a big area and to throw some of the big names in the bin would be murdering philosophy. Would Dennett go in the bin and what about Carl Jung? Jung is not part of the philosophy of mind in the conventional sense, but he had a model of the human psyche. So, with the razor, who would decide what should be cut or kept, in understanding the mind?
But then most of the other insights of the Western philosophers are be brought back and reinterpreted. And even many of the dualistic insights, ways of thinking are brought back, and re-established as the dualistic "everyday" philosophy of consciousness, once we understood its true nondual fundamental nature.
Eventually there also may arise the need to almost completely separate the fundamental understanding from the everyday existentialist philosophy, so one begins to lead a sort of intellectual double life.
Jung was talking about dividing the individual human brain/mind into conscious and unconscious etc., that's largely untouched by the above.
Dennett lands in the bin even without the help of the razor. But then, their multiple drafts model isn't bad, when reinterpreted in the right context.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
The subconscious vs conscious duality, and the epistemological dualism, are two very important REAL "kinda-dualities" about the actual internal structure of the human mind.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 9:14 amOf course, the topic of the philosophy of mind is such a large one in it's own right. I am not a great fan of Dennett, although I find some of his writing worth reading. That may be where it gets difficult applying the razor because it is hard to sift out the gems and treasures amidst the clutter and chaos. It is a bit like tidying up or deciding what to keep or throw away when moving. A couple of people have thought that I should throw most of my philosophy books away, especially when I moved 2 years ago, and I am glad I didn't because they are useful on this site. If the razor was applied too strongly half the posts on the site, or even the site itself might be thrown in the bin by some people, which might be sad for us. I would keep rescue Jung from the bonfire straight away as apart from speaking of the division between the conscious and the subconscious he was one of the last systemic writers, with his great volumes of writings, the Collected Works and several other books.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:41 amThat's a massive topic, maybe could be condensed to the size of a book.. I meant that all the dualistic assumptions, beliefs, implications go into the bin, when we are talking about the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/reality. The thinking, life experience of almost all Western philosophers and almost all Westerners is based, interwoven with them, on all levels, in every way. It's like the backbone of Western thinking.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:22 amBut, 'the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can' may be a great loss because there is so much to be learned from it. At what point, would ideas be drawn from and would it simply go into the matters of psychology rather than philosophy? On what basis would the ideas be cut off.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 7:19 am
A good example is applying it to the philosophy of mind. The assumption that fundamental, inherent duality exists, seems to be unnecessary.
So the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can. All these philosophies (even idealism and materialism) are dualistic in one or more ways, overt or covert.
Would you believe what book I have started reading, Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'? It is different from the movement of phenomenology, which I find to be extremely useful in its own right. It can be a case of trying to read so many of the writers of the past, especially in connection with materialism and idealism leads to getting bogged down, but it is such a big area and to throw some of the big names in the bin would be murdering philosophy. Would Dennett go in the bin and what about Carl Jung? Jung is not part of the philosophy of mind in the conventional sense, but he had a model of the human psyche. So, with the razor, who would decide what should be cut or kept, in understanding the mind?
But then most of the other insights of the Western philosophers are be brought back and reinterpreted. And even many of the dualistic insights, ways of thinking are brought back, and re-established as the dualistic "everyday" philosophy of consciousness, once we understood its true nondual fundamental nature.
Eventually there also may arise the need to almost completely separate the fundamental understanding from the everyday existentialist philosophy, so one begins to lead a sort of intellectual double life.
Jung was talking about dividing the individual human brain/mind into conscious and unconscious etc., that's largely untouched by the above.
Dennett lands in the bin even without the help of the razor. But then, their multiple drafts model isn't bad, when reinterpreted in the right context.
They aren't made-up fundamental philosophical dualities, so the razor doesn't cut them out. They only turn into made-up dualities, when we start treating tham as like, belonging to different kinds of realities or something.
--------------
As for Dennett, despite him claiming that he isn't some sort of eliminative materialist, he is one.
Eliminitive materialism is a sort of self-deception where we convince ourselves that we only believe in one kind of thing, matter.
But the truth is that to believe in only matter, we had to go through the original material-mental realm split, and then deny the mental realm, and reinterpret everything mental as material. So we actually believe in matter and no-mind.
The razor cuts all that out. We cut out the belief in matter and no-mind, then we also cut out the original material/mental split.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3218
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
I definitely see the material/mental split as unhelpful, especially in the form of the Newtonian-Cartesian model. The issue may whether one needs to have come across the model through examining it in the first place. It may be that without examining the ideas of the thinkers of the past it might be a task of discovering the ideas which they stumbled upon. Through looking at these thinkers we are able to stand on the shoulders of giants, although there are so many that they would constitute a tall chain of towers into the skies. It may be that the razor is useful but a complex process and that the outcomes would be different amongst many people. Perhaps, this is part of the ongoing task which each of us is doing, even if there are fierce fights as to what gets thrown away by some and recycled by another.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 9:32 amThe subconscious vs conscious duality, and the epistemological dualism, are two very important REAL "kinda-dualities" about the actual internal structure of the human mind.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 9:14 amOf course, the topic of the philosophy of mind is such a large one in it's own right. I am not a great fan of Dennett, although I find some of his writing worth reading. That may be where it gets difficult applying the razor because it is hard to sift out the gems and treasures amidst the clutter and chaos. It is a bit like tidying up or deciding what to keep or throw away when moving. A couple of people have thought that I should throw most of my philosophy books away, especially when I moved 2 years ago, and I am glad I didn't because they are useful on this site. If the razor was applied too strongly half the posts on the site, or even the site itself might be thrown in the bin by some people, which might be sad for us. I would keep rescue Jung from the bonfire straight away as apart from speaking of the division between the conscious and the subconscious he was one of the last systemic writers, with his great volumes of writings, the Collected Works and several other books.Atla wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:41 amThat's a massive topic, maybe could be condensed to the size of a book.. I meant that all the dualistic assumptions, beliefs, implications go into the bin, when we are talking about the fundamental nature of mind/consciousness/reality. The thinking, life experience of almost all Western philosophers and almost all Westerners is based, interwoven with them, on all levels, in every way. It's like the backbone of Western thinking.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 8:22 am
But, 'the razor cuts out the entire history of the Western philosophy of mind and throws it into the trash can' may be a great loss because there is so much to be learned from it. At what point, would ideas be drawn from and would it simply go into the matters of psychology rather than philosophy? On what basis would the ideas be cut off.
Would you believe what book I have started reading, Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'? It is different from the movement of phenomenology, which I find to be extremely useful in its own right. It can be a case of trying to read so many of the writers of the past, especially in connection with materialism and idealism leads to getting bogged down, but it is such a big area and to throw some of the big names in the bin would be murdering philosophy. Would Dennett go in the bin and what about Carl Jung? Jung is not part of the philosophy of mind in the conventional sense, but he had a model of the human psyche. So, with the razor, who would decide what should be cut or kept, in understanding the mind?
But then most of the other insights of the Western philosophers are be brought back and reinterpreted. And even many of the dualistic insights, ways of thinking are brought back, and re-established as the dualistic "everyday" philosophy of consciousness, once we understood its true nondual fundamental nature.
Eventually there also may arise the need to almost completely separate the fundamental understanding from the everyday existentialist philosophy, so one begins to lead a sort of intellectual double life.
Jung was talking about dividing the individual human brain/mind into conscious and unconscious etc., that's largely untouched by the above.
Dennett lands in the bin even without the help of the razor. But then, their multiple drafts model isn't bad, when reinterpreted in the right context.
They aren't made-up fundamental philosophical dualities, so the razor doesn't cut them out. They only turn into made-up dualities, when we start treating tham as like, belonging to different kinds of realities or something.
--------------
As for Dennett, despite him claiming that he isn't some sort of eliminative materialist, he is one.
Eliminitive materialism is a sort of self-deception where we convince ourselves that we only believe in one kind of thing, matter.
But the truth is that to believe in only matter, we had to go through the original material-mental realm split, and then deny the mental realm, and reinterpret everything mental as material. So we actually believe in matter and no-mind.
The razor cuts all that out. We cut out the belief in matter and no-mind, then we also cut out the original material/mental split.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Then there are the other two big made-up dichotomies in the philosophy of mind, the subject-object dichotomy, and the illusion of the ego "I" vs "not-I" dichotomy. Although they can be seen as the same dichotomy.JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 10:01 am I definitely see the material/mental split as unhelpful, especially in the form of the Newtonian-Cartesian model. The issue may whether one needs to have come across the model through examining it in the first place. It may be that without examining the ideas of the thinkers of the past it might be a task of discovering the ideas which they stumbled upon. Through looking at these thinkers we are able to stand on the shoulders of giants, although there are so many that they would constitute a tall chain of towers into the skies. It may be that the razor is useful but a complex process and that the outcomes would be different amongst many people. Perhaps, this is part of the ongoing task which each of us is doing, even if there are fierce fights as to what gets thrown away by some and recycled by another.
Occam's razor cuts them out, which, when we go all the way, eventually leads to what I think is called in some Eastern philosophies as "awakening", "realizing our true nature".
So you see we go back all the way to like, Plato, and say naah
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
I can also try to show a more personalized use of the razor, if my guess is correct. Let me ask you something first:
So despite knowing intellectually that all these metaphysicial dualities don't really seem to exist, your own personal life experience still seems to be that you are somehow immersed in two different worlds at once, right? Existing in two realities. And most other people just don't know what you mean. So you've been looking into the mystical, looking into higher realms, looking for insights, explanations, etc.?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:33 am "Most people don't seem to use this, and I have absolutely no idea why they are doing philosophy then."
Everyday life is one thing; philosophy, even speculative philosophy, is something else, I think.
Really?
The Razor is a valuable tool, when applied appropriately, as I'm sure you're aware.
If we have a situation where we need to act illogically — discarding possibilities without evidence, or some other reason to do so — but we insist on proceeding anyway, then the Razor is there to help us guess which possibility seems the most likely. In this case, where we are trying to 'firm up' or formalise our thinking, I don't think the Razor is helpful. We aren't choosing between one list of possible solutions to a question we have already determined, we are looking at questions, and wondering which we should consider. The Razor doesn't seem helpful for this.Wikipedia wrote:Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".[1][2] It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred.
This exchange began here:
Jack is wondering how we might 'firm up' our thinking, as I mentioned. Your suggestion was:JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 8:15 am However, I do still wonder about the various viewpoints of thinkers, wondering about their validity and where they stand in connection with the concept of truth, even though I realise they it is hard to pin it down in any clear way.
Your words imply that the Razor is a tool that can be used to make our thinking more 'formal', or even 'scientific', and it can't. It's just a rule of thumb, nothing more. It doesn't formalise our thinking in that way.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 8:26 am There is one such way, going for maximum relative certainty using Occam's razor.
Most people don't seem to use this, and I have absolutely no idea why they are doing philosophy then. Without it, there are like an infinite amount of equally good explanations for anything.
I never suggested discarding the Razor, but I did and do suggest that we employ it appropriately, as I discussed above.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Again not true, I was replying to this:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 11:10 amPattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:33 am "Most people don't seem to use this, and I have absolutely no idea why they are doing philosophy then."
Everyday life is one thing; philosophy, even speculative philosophy, is something else, I think.Really?
The Razor is a valuable tool, when applied appropriately, as I'm sure you're aware.
If we have a situation where we need to act illogically — discarding possibilities without evidence, or some other reason to do so — but we insist on proceeding anyway, then the Razor is there to help us guess which possibility seems the most likely. In this case, where we are trying to 'firm up' or formalise our thinking, I don't think the Razor is helpful. We aren't choosing between one list of possible solutions to a question we have already determined, we are looking at questions, and wondering which we should consider. The Razor doesn't seem helpful for this.Wikipedia wrote:Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami), also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae), is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".[1][2] It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred.
This exchange began here:
Jack is wondering how we might 'firm up' our thinking, as I mentioned. Your suggestion was:JackDaydream wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 8:15 am However, I do still wonder about the various viewpoints of thinkers, wondering about their validity and where they stand in connection with the concept of truth, even though I realise they it is hard to pin it down in any clear way.
Your words imply that the Razor is a tool that can be used to make our thinking more 'formal', or even 'scientific', and it can't. It's just a rule of thumb, nothing more. It doesn't formalise our thinking in that way.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 8:26 am There is one such way, going for maximum relative certainty using Occam's razor.
Most people don't seem to use this, and I have absolutely no idea why they are doing philosophy then. Without it, there are like an infinite amount of equally good explanations for anything.
I never suggested discarding the Razor, but I did and do suggest that we employ it appropriately, as I discussed above.
My point is that there is a particular way of seeing reality, which is above all others (probably).I used to believe that there was probably a particular way of seeing reality, which was above all others. I used to go to various churches and organisations trying to find it. Nowadays, I don't do that and I am not at all sure of a particular truth at all. However, I do still wonder about the various viewpoints of thinkers, wondering about their validity and where they stand in connection with the concept of truth, even though I realise they it is hard to pin it down in any clear way.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Wow! The Razor is a tool to choose between assumptions (guesses), not to avoid them. There is nothing about the Razor, or the way it works, that will help to "produce the most accurate view of reality". You misrepresent the Razor as a formal and scientific (?) technique. It is nothing of the sort. It is a guideline, like a proverb. "Look before you leap" is good advice, but no-one (I hope) would suggest it as a formal investigative technique. The same applies to the Razor.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pm The Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary assumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Don't you understand what the word "probably" means? I don't think I'm the one here who can't let go of the need for absolute certainty.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 12:30 pmWow! The Razor is a tool to choose between assumptions (guesses), not to avoid them. There is nothing about the Razor, or the way it works, that will help to "produce the most accurate view of reality". You misrepresent the Razor as a formal and scientific (?) technique. It is nothing of the sort. It is a guideline, like a proverb. "Look before you leap" is good advice, but no-one (I hope) would suggest it as a formal investigative technique. The same applies to the Razor.Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pm The Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary assumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: How Can 'Truth' Be Established?
Atla wrote: ↑June 28th, 2022, 11:38 pm The Occam's razor is brutal, it doesn't care about what is important to people. It's simply a tool to produce the most accurate view of reality using the least number of necessary assumptions, but going along with the implications of those assumptions all the way.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 29th, 2022, 12:30 pm Wow! The Razor is a tool to choose between assumptions (guesses), not to avoid them. There is nothing about the Razor, or the way it works, that will help to "produce the most accurate view of reality". You misrepresent the Razor as a formal and scientific (?) technique. It is nothing of the sort. It is a guideline, like a proverb. "Look before you leap" is good advice, but no-one (I hope) would suggest it as a formal investigative technique. The same applies to the Razor.
Sorry, are you referring back to text that neither of us has quoted here? I can't see "probably" anywhere.
"Who cares, wins"
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023