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

[Jayhawker Soule]

In any dialogue counterposing Theism to Science, it's only a matter of time before someone on the science side promotes the virtues of Occam's Razor, confidently asserting that ...

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

I would argue, however, that Occam's Razor is worthless in this debate. In fact, to argue Occam's Razor against ID is every bit as flawed as it is to argue 2 Timothy in support of Biblical inerrancy. To eliminate God(s) as unnecessary on the grounds that God(s) is/are unnecessary is to assume the vey thing that one intends to prove, i.e., classical circular reasoning.


So, where does that leave us. As I noted in a pevious thread:

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

At best, Occam's Razor conveys an underwhelming tautology: "unnecessary things are unnecessary". At its worse, it makes an unwarranted statement about nature: as pattern-matching creatures we want and like simple answers, but there is simply no philosophical or scientific reason to assert that the simplest or most parsimonious explanation is necessarily the correct one.

Finally, it is interesting that ID'ers make their own appeal to parsimony. How else are they to explain men with nipples? What they can not explain, however, is how one obtains degrees of parsimony in the face of omnipotence.

[Ellie_A]

Occam's Razor does not take "GOD" out of the evolution argument. It takes the "ifs" out of the ID arguement. I could what if all day. There are many who believe that God created everything, and that evolution followed. Apply Occam's Razor to the last statement... and you can not get any simpler than that!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Ellie_A

... and you can not get any simpler than that!

Oh my! Well, I guess that settles it ...

The Bohr model is far simpler than the idea of P-Branes slithering around in some 11-dimensional quark-infested multiiverse. Conversely, the work of leading cosmologists such as Stephan Hawking is replete with speculation and "ifs". You may covet simplicity (or parsimony), but that in no way makes it philosophically or scientifically superior. As a gentleman named Hugo Holbling wote: "Kepler wasted a good deal of time because he considered circles simpler than ellipses."

[Ellie_A]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Oh my! Well, I guess that settles it ...

The Bohr model is far simpler than the idea of P-Branes slithering around in some 11-dimensional quark-infested multiiverse. Conversely, the work of leading cosmologists such as Stephan Hawking is replete with speculation and "ifs". You may covet simplicity (or parsimony), but that in no way makes it philosophically or scientifically superior. As a gentleman named Hugo Holbling wote: "Kepler wasted a good deal of time because he considered circles simpler than ellipses."

Hawkins has admited that his theroy is flawed! I thought we were talking about the ID v Evo conflict... yes science is flawed... but science begs to be proven so.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Ellie_A

Hawkins has admited that his theroy is flawed!

You're swatting at gnats you don't understand. So, fo example:

Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking: How can black holes destroy all traces of consumed matter and energy, as Hawking long believed, when subatomic theory says such elements must survive in some form?

Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons but themselves eventually deteriorate and die. As the black hole disintegrates, they send their transformed contents back out into the infinite universal horizons from whence they came.

Previously, Hawking, 62, had held out the possibility that disappearing matter travels through the black hole to a new parallel universe — the very stuff of most visionary science fiction.

- see Hawking's New Black Hole Theory

Yes, he was wrong. Your point (if any)?

Originally Posted by Ellie_A

I thought we were talking about the ID v Evo conflict.

I was talking about Occam's Razor. On what grounds do you promote it?

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Ellie_A

Hawkins has admited that his theroy is flawed! I thought we were talking about the ID v Evo conflict... yes science is flawed... but science begs to be proven so.

Hawkings theory wasn`t so much "Flawed" as it was"Changed".
(I`m assuming you`re speaking of his black hole emitting matter statements)

I agree that Occams Razor doesn`t take the God out of ID (I would further state that Occams Razor does however take ID out of ID)and it is probably over/misused with myself being guilty of it.

However I still think it`s a fine idea to use in alot of religious debate.

For instance, in the Biblical Discrepencies thread I showed that a certain verse doesn`t state that a person is a hater .
I was countered by a Christian stating that we can still believe that person hates because it doesn`t specifically say he doesn`t hate.
That is ridiculous.
If we have to analize a books intent by what it doesn`t say in order to understand it then we can never understand it..any book..anything.

Occams Razor takes this idiocy out of the argument.

[Ellie_A]

Originally Posted by linwood

Hawkings theory wasn`t so much "Flawed" as it was"Changed".
(I`m assuming you`re speaking of his black hole emitting matter statements)

I agree that Occams Razor doesn`t take the God out of ID (I would further state that Occams Razor does however take ID out of ID)and it is probably over/misused with myself being guilty of it.

However I still think it`s a fine idea to use in alot of religious debate.

For instance, in the Biblical Discrepencies thread I showed that a certain verse doesn`t state that a person is a hater .
I was countered by a Christian stating that we can still believe that person hates because it doesn`t specifically say he doesn`t hate.
That is ridiculous.
If we have to analize a books intent by what it doesn`t say in order to understand it then we can never understand it..any book..anything.

Occams Razor takes this idiocy out of the argument.

Thank you I could not have said it like that.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by linwood

For instance, in the Biblical Discrepencies thread I showed that a certain verse doesn`t state that a person is a hater. I was countered by a Christian stating that we can still believe that person hates because it doesn`t specifically say he doesn`t hate.

Assuming that your rendition is accurate, the counterposition may be ridiculous, but it is, nevertheless, formally correct.

Rather than attempting to argue anecdotally, why not simply suggest a philosophical justification for the primacy of parsimony?

[linwood]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Assuming that your rendition is accurate, the counterposition may be ridiculous, but it is, nevertheless, formally correct.

It may be formally correct but this is exactly the type of thought that gives rise to what you yourself have labelled "Ignorant Misconception".
To allow this type of counter is to allow that evidence has no value even when presented within strict context.
In other words "To hell with the evidence, anything goes!!"

Rather than attempting to argue anecdotally, why not simply suggest a philosophical justification for the primacy of parsimony?

Because as you`ve said simplicity does not always necessarily equal truth, besides I don`t think my target audience would "Get it".

I don`t think it`s anecdotal to derive meaning in the written word from the context it is written in as opposed to deriving meaning from imaginary context.

In respect to the example I`ve given I believe I did offer justification for simplicity with the statement...

" If we have to analize a books intent by what it doesn`t say in order to understand it then we can never understand it..any book..anything."

Which is essentially the defense I gave for my understanding of the verse in question.
In this case I didn`t use Occams Razor as a defense but I believe I would have been justified if I had done so.

I could further argue that Occams Razor is a philisophical justification for the primacy of parsimony.

Before we get too far off track let me re-state that I agree with you Occams Razor is often over/mis-used but I don`t agree the concept is as worthless as you seem to suggest.