Occam's Razor; Dull and Over-Hiped (evolution, Biblical, God, Christian)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by linwood

The simplest idea is always the first one investigated until disproven.

That has nothing to do with forensic science, nor does it have anything to do with forensic procedures.

You clearly like Occam and will cling to it as long as possible. If it gives you comfort - enjoy.

[Orthodox]

Congats on starting an awesome thread Duet! It really does irk me when Ockham's Razor is used to adavance the idea (with regards to causes) that 'the fewest the truest'. As Duet 32:8 said "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything".

The common misconception is about as absurd as quoting the bible to atheists to prove them wrong.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

The common misconception is about as absurd as quoting the bible to atheists to prove them wrong.

Thanks. Actually, it's "about as absurd as quoting the bible to ... prove" almost anything.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

That has nothing to do with forensic science, nor does it have anything to do with forensic procedures.

A statement does not make fact Deut.
Back it up.
In order to determine who did what does a forensic investigator not usually take the most obvious simplest course towards discovering evidence or not?

My assertion is that the concept of Occams Razor is used to establish a verifiable line of possibilities.
I have no problem with you proving me wrong.
It`s just that I have yet to see it.

You clearly like Occam and will cling to it as long as possible. If it gives you comfort - enjoy.

I actually rarely if ever use Occams Razor in debate, you will have a difficult time finding more than one reference to it in any post of mine on this or any forum.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by linwood

In order to determine who did what does a forensic investigator not usually take the most obvious simplest course towards discovering evidence or not?



My assertion is that the concept of Occams Razor is used to establish a verifiable line of possibilities.

Then show me where it's used in that manner.

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."


—Through the Looking Glass, 1872

You assert? Do you think is sufficient to simply make it up? I trust that you are paying Occam his due. You may assert whatever you wish, but there is no reading of Occam that justifies your novel and essentially ad hoc revision.

[linwood]

You assert? Do you think is sufficient to simply make it up? I trust that you are paying Occam his due. You may assert whatever you wish, but there is no reading of Occam that justifies your novel and essentially ad hoc revision.

Lets begin with the OP in this thread.

Deut….in your OP you stated that Occams razor is essentially useless when pitting scientific method against theism.

I have conceded this point, but to clarify I’ll again explain why I conceded this point.

The Razor is useless against theism simply because of theisms supernatural flavor.
When you have an omnipotent, omnipresent, deity there is no way or reason to discern what is and is not necessary.

It is a moot point that actually leads to circular argument on the part of the debater using the Razor.

Deut made this clear to me and I thank him for the education.

Once I made this concession I began wondering if Occams Razor had any usefulness at all .
Considering I live in a home with three children I eventually came to the conclusion that it is a bit silly to think it was useless considering I use it liberally on a daily basis in my own house. I cannot possibly determine which child started the fight, broke the window, ate the last cookie, or who pushed who first without using the Razor in some form.

It cannot be done without it, in fact it is one of the things that can give a parent the “magical second sight” many children are so in awe of.

I submitted to this thread that while the razor cannot be used on the hypothetical there is no reason it cannot be used to determine specific discernable evidence.

I further stated that it is often used as a part of scientific process in exactly these conditions.

I want to define my use of Occams razor so there is no misunderstanding considering the accusation of revisionism I’ve already been handed.

In its simplest form, Occam's razor states that one should not take more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

I think this is the same definition Deut gave it in his OP

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

I think Deuts problem with Occam’s razor is that he sees it as a tool used to determine the end result of any inquiry.

..there is simply no philosophical or scientific reason to assert that the simplest or most parsimonious explanation is necessarily the correct one.

This isn’t what the Razor is, in fact this is a strawman.
The Razor does not and never has asserted that the simplest explanation is correct.
Granted many people misuse it in this manner but that does not make it so.

Occams Razor asserts that the simplest explanation is the “best or preferred” explanation.
The explanation void of assumption or special pleading is always the best.
If some assumption is necessary to continue then use the explanation with the least assumption.
In other words only use evidence the is demonstrably correct .
If you use evidence you know to be correct you will be as close to the truth as possible.
Assumptions only cloud the issue and unnecessarily increase possibilities.
What Occams Razor does in scientific study and in my household is determine the best and fastest possible line of evidence to follow.

Once you have studied and eliminated the simplest possibility you can then move on to the next simplest possibility and then on to the next simplest always increasing in complexity until you find the answer that fits the possibilities.
The simplest possibility will always be the easiest to falsify.
In this manner a scientist (or parent) can get to the conclusion faster while expending the least resources to get there.
How does a scientist determine this line of evidence in this order (simple to complex)?
He/she uses Occams Razor.

In fact Occam’s razor can be seen as a necessary hypothetical tool for any and all science considering science itself is the practice of submitting and falsifying hypothesis

I have been asked to show how Occams Razor can be useful in a scientific context.

Copernicus has both succeeded and failed due to his use of Occam’s razor.
When he formed his hypothesis of a geocentric solar system he used the Razor to discard the epicycles theorized by Ptolemaic cosmology as unnecessary.
This brought him closer to the truth.
However, when he submitted his version of planetary motion he decided that all planetary motion was circular because a circle has a simplicity about it.
Planetary orbits are actually elliptical not circular and there the razor failed him.
However his concepts eventually led Kepler to “observe” the truth .

David Wolpert from the NASA-Ames Research Center is an advocate of Occam’s razor and has used it in his research in collective intelligence and elsewhere.

“…if we assume that the generalization of an algorithm improves with more data, on average, then its generalization can be improved further by transforming the algorithm via Occam's razor (i.e., by simplifying it according to a particular model-free definition of "simplicity").” http://rii.ricoh.com/~stork/OccamWorkshop.html#anchor28616885

There are a number of other scientists at the link above stating their opinions of the pros & cons of Occam’s razor.
While they all find fault with it when misused or applied incorrectly they all speak of its necessity in their work.

The University of Illinois teaches the proper use of Occam’s razor in its Anthropology courses.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...edArticles.htm

Here is a link to an example of the Razor being used to classify recognizable patterns.
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/projects/jacob/

if the tool is indeed useful, surely you could find some application in the variegated world of science.

I believe I’ve done that.

Occam’s razor defines the criterion for assessing an explanation.





References used;

Philosophical Concepts in Physics by James T Cushing.

http://www.complete-review.com/revie...hingj/pcip.htm

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by linwood

The Razor is useless against theism simply because of theisms supernatural flavor. When you have an omnipotent, omnipresent, deity there is no way or reason to discern what is and is not necessary.

Excellent!

Originally Posted by linwood

I think this is the same definition Deut gave it in his OP I think Deuts problem with Occam's razor is that he sees it as a tool used to determine the end result of any inquiry. This isn't what the Razor is, in fact this is a strawman.

The Razor does not and never has asserted that the simplest explanation is correct. ... Occams Razor asserts that the simplest explanation is the "best or preferred" explanation.

With respect, linwood, it is not a strawman. In the domain of "explanations" (your assertion, not mine) what is your criteria for "best or preferred"? Since when is the "best or preferred ... explanations" not the one shown to be more accurate?

Originally Posted by linwood

Copernicus has both succeeded and failed due to his use of Occam's razor. ...

I would be very interested in seeing this documented.

Originally Posted by linwood

Occam's razor defines the criterion for assessing an explanation.

Yes. I believe that is its intent. Its criteria for 'assessing' (i.e., evaluating) an 'explanation' is parsimony. There is zero philosophical basis for assessing the simpler explanation as better. Perhaps you are confusing 'assessing' with 'accessing'.

Originally Posted by linwood

References used; ...[/url]

First and formost, yours was an excellent post, and I've very much enjoyed following your links. Thank you.

The problem, I think, is your continued tendency to blur

1. Occam's Razor as the claim "that the simplest explanation is the 'best or preferred' explanation", with
2. Occam's Razor as a guideline for gathering the facts to be explained.

I've been programming embedded systems for a couple of decades. More than once I've employed various simplifying heuristics to achieve a preferred result in a (statistically) more efficient manner. And I very much agree that, before dragging out the storage scope and logic analyzer to debug a printer problem, you would do well to first make sure that the damn thing is plugged in to a working power source.

But, as a

• claim "that the simplest explanation is the "best or preferred" explanation",
• or "criterion for assessing an explanation"

Occam's Razor is, in fact, dull, over-hyped, and baseless.

Thanks for the dialogue - sincerely.

[linwood]