Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 4:08 am**

h_k_s wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 3:49 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 2:16 am
If you mean that what you said and what I said are the same, they are not.
To say that simpler explanations are more likely to be true is a theory about how the universe works and is made up. Like it is more likely it will turn out that consciousness is caused by a simple mechanism than a complicated one, because simpler explanations are more likely.
Whereas the OR is a methodological explanation...
if we have two explanations and one of them has less entities and they both work equally well explainging the pheonomenon, then is is better to choose the simpler one.

Those are very different kinds of ideas, the first is a theory about ontology, the second is a suggestion about how community decides what to consider knowledge.
Simpler explanations are more likely to be true -- you are correct.

Yeah, well, I don't know how to say it so you will understand. I mean that that is not the case - and would be rather odd news to particle physicists and neuroscients - and it is also NOT what Occam's Razor is saying.

It could be your hypothesis.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 7:58 am**

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 4th, 2019, 9:33 am
h_k_s wrote: ↑April 29th, 2019, 10:01 am Occam's razor says that of all possible explanations, the simplest explanation is probably the most likely to be true.
It doesn't say this. That's and ontological claim, whereas the OR is a methological suggestion. If we have two hypotheses that fit the evidence, let's agree on the one that posits less entities. This way we are protected from drawing more conclusions than is necessary (so far).

If you had been in the technical writing course that I used to teach at the college level, you would have learned to clean up your language and writing so that it would become much cleaner than it now is. Having said that …

Occam's Razor: make as few assumptions as is necessary; never more than needed.

Corollary: the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be valid.

Same-ee same G/I Soldier.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 8:40 am**

h_k_s wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 7:58 am Occam's Razor: make as few assumptions as is necessary; never more than needed.

Corollary: the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be valid.

It's not a corollary, if you'd taken my college philosophy classes I would have had more time to show you in more detail and could have assigned you readings to make it easier for you to acknowledge that the first statement does not entail the second and certainly is not same same.

I notice you do not respond to examples or arguments. You repeat your position. I am surprised a college teacher or professor considers that a response.

The second is an ontological claim. The former is a methodological suggestion.
The latter is a terrible heuristic. And would mislead neuroscientists and partical physicists, for example. And actually does mislead certain kinds of technocrats who view ecosystems as simple things to tweak: say with cane toads or as a rule tonsil removal.

One could add in a lot of provisos to the second statement to make is a better heuristic, but it still is not entailed from the first statement because it is a claim about truth, rather than an instruction regarding how 'we' as a group of people trying to determine which of two EQUALLY EFFECTIVE explanations to choose BETWEEN should proceed.

That's not an assertion about how the universe is made up: that is, it ain't an ontological assertion.

But you seem to be someone who doesn't really want to actually have a discussion. If you were unclear about a point I made, you could ask. But for some reason, in your universe, you seem to think restating your opinion is having a philosophical discussion.

The simplest explanation for your pointing out my errors is that you see this as a pissing match.
The simplest explanation for your not responding to the points I made, or asking for clarification if you felt it was unclear, is that you are not a good interlocuter and one that is actually afraid to interact with other people's ideas or you are lazy, not that these are mutually exclusive options.

But just because that's the simplest doesn't mean it's true. However the pattern has tried my patience enough to make me ignore you from here on out.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 10:31 am**

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 8:40 am
h_k_s wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 7:58 am Occam's Razor: make as few assumptions as is necessary; never more than needed.

Corollary: the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be valid.
It's not a corollary, if you'd taken my college philosophy classes I would have had more time to show you in more detail and could have assigned you readings to make it easier for you to acknowledge that the first statement does not entail the second and certainly is not same same.

I notice you do not respond to examples or arguments. You repeat your position. I am surprised a college teacher or professor considers that a response.

The second is an ontological claim. The former is a methodological suggestion.
The latter is a terrible heuristic. And would mislead neuroscientists and partical physicists, for example. And actually does mislead certain kinds of technocrats who view ecosystems as simple things to tweak: say with cane toads or as a rule tonsil removal.

One could add in a lot of provisos to the second statement to make is a better heuristic, but it still is not entailed from the first statement because it is a claim about truth, rather than an instruction regarding how 'we' as a group of people trying to determine which of two EQUALLY EFFECTIVE explanations to choose BETWEEN should proceed.

That's not an assertion about how the universe is made up: that is, it ain't an ontological assertion.

But you seem to be someone who doesn't really want to actually have a discussion. If you were unclear about a point I made, you could ask. But for some reason, in your universe, you seem to think restating your opinion is having a philosophical discussion.

The simplest explanation for your pointing out my errors is that you see this as a pissing match.
The simplest explanation for your not responding to the points I made, or asking for clarification if you felt it was unclear, is that you are not a good interlocuter and one that is actually afraid to interact with other people's ideas or you are lazy, not that these are mutually exclusive options.

But just because that's the simplest doesn't mean it's true. However the pattern has tried my patience enough to make me ignore you from here on out.

I am going to enjoy discussions with you Karpel Tunnel and I have added you to my friends list.

Posted: **May 7th, 2019, 10:37 am**

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 8:40 am
h_k_s wrote: ↑May 7th, 2019, 7:58 am Occam's Razor: make as few assumptions as is necessary; never more than needed.

Corollary: the simplest explanation is usually the most likely to be valid.
It's not a corollary, if you'd taken my college philosophy classes I would have had more time to show you in more detail and could have assigned you readings to make it easier for you to acknowledge that the first statement does not entail the second and certainly is not same same.

I notice you do not respond to examples or arguments. You repeat your position. I am surprised a college teacher or professor considers that a response.

The second is an ontological claim. The former is a methodological suggestion.
The latter is a terrible heuristic. And would mislead neuroscientists and partical physicists, for example. And actually does mislead certain kinds of technocrats who view ecosystems as simple things to tweak: say with cane toads or as a rule tonsil removal.

One could add in a lot of provisos to the second statement to make is a better heuristic, but it still is not entailed from the first statement because it is a claim about truth, rather than an instruction regarding how 'we' as a group of people trying to determine which of two EQUALLY EFFECTIVE explanations to choose BETWEEN should proceed.

That's not an assertion about how the universe is made up: that is, it ain't an ontological assertion.

But you seem to be someone who doesn't really want to actually have a discussion. If you were unclear about a point I made, you could ask. But for some reason, in your universe, you seem to think restating your opinion is having a philosophical discussion.

The simplest explanation for your pointing out my errors is that you see this as a pissing match.
The simplest explanation for your not responding to the points I made, or asking for clarification if you felt it was unclear, is that you are not a good interlocuter and one that is actually afraid to interact with other people's ideas or you are lazy, not that these are mutually exclusive options.

But just because that's the simplest doesn't mean it's true. However the pattern has tried my patience enough to make me ignore you from here on out.

Good analysis, Karpel Tunnel .

You cover a lot of good possibilities there.

In my own particular case, I have found that like Socrates it is best to torture others with questions in order to get at meaning.

In my own view, Socrates used questions as a means to manipulate others into his own version of Sophist conclusions.

I myself use questions to torture others to make them cough up all their arguments and views. My questions are subtle however. They often are not phrased as questions.

At any rate, as I pointed out before, you yourself will likely be a valuable resourse here and to me and to others.

Posted: **June 6th, 2019, 4:11 pm**

Kevin Levites

Never blame an insufficiency of theory on that which can be adequately explained by a sloppy and/or substandard application of said theory."

You mean, just because the theory is sloppy or substandard, if it works, it's ok? You mean by it working that it has no competing theory that does a better job; and you mean there are no outstanding anomalies the the theory fails to address; and you mean by "sloppy" the theory is not efficient in its conception, as it would be were the standard razor to used??

But are you implying that a theory can be both sloppy or substandardly applied AND sufficient, sufficiency being essential to being adequate to what is required? If so, then the sufficiency must lie with the parts of the theory that do what the theory needs to do.(Forget about application--why would you include this? It is entirely beside the point of theory content). This means there is something about this theory that is not blameworthy for its content save that it is in mere excess, and this means it possesses all the Occams razor would preserve, just more. It would be redundant, there would be nonsequitors, irrelevancies, and so on. No one would argue to keep these. Therefore, your "new" razor would likely be just as the old.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

A new razor

Re: A new razor

Re: A new razor

Re: A new razor

Re: A new razor

Re: A new razor

Re: A new razor