Dubstepforum.com

ftw, yes? no? what?

how do you feel about OR in regards to things that can't be proven by science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

old fashioned example:

an apple falls off a tree

the explanation could be
A. Gravity
B. Faeries
C. Wind

Most reasonable people would agree that A is the simplest explanation, and therefore by OR the correct one, however, to people who believe that spirits are everywhere and inhabit everything, B. may be the simplest explanation.

Scientifically, there isn't proof of faeries, but you can't deny that it's still a simple explanation. Here's were things get interesting.

Well, the apple could fall for any number of reasons. However, the force that causes it to fall has been deemed to be gravity, and that is true of all falling objects.

Mind you, I fell over last weekend and that was definately faeries. Either that or booze...

Tomity wrote:Well, the apple could fall for any number of reasons. However, the force that causes it to fall has been deemed to be gravity, and that is true of all falling objects.

Mind you, I fell over last weekend and that was definately faeries. Either that or booze...

LOLOLOL!!!

problem is how do you prove that something dosn't exist? or more specifically something that is apperently or for the most part intangeble dosn't exist?

I'd also argue to a certain degree that faeries and gravity are the same thing. Before the notion of gravity there had to be a reason why things fell out of the tree. Might as well be spirits? Whether people thought of them as actual things or just appreciated the consept I have no idea.

eLBe wrote:problem is how do you prove that something dosn't exist? or more specifically something that is apperently or for the most part intangeble dosn't exist?

Take a running kick at the thing. If it moves, its real. If it fights back, its real. If you leg passes through it then there might be a problem.

i agree...

seckle wrote:old fashioned example:

an apple falls off a tree

the explanation could be
A. Gravity
B. Faeries
C. Wind

Most reasonable people would agree that A is the simplest explanation, and therefore by OR the correct one, however, to people who believe that spirits are everywhere and inhabit everything, B. may be the simplest explanation.

Scientifically, there isn't proof of faeries, but you can't deny that it's still a simple explanation. Here's were things get interesting.

It's not as simple as gravity though. In the case of gravity the only assumption is that gravity exists. As this is true the apple had to fall. In the case of the fairies you make the assumptions that they exist, that they are invisible and that they for some reason decided to pull down the apple.

your mum wrote:

seckle wrote:old fashioned example:

an apple falls off a tree

the explanation could be
A. Gravity
B. Faeries
C. Wind

Most reasonable people would agree that A is the simplest explanation, and therefore by OR the correct one, however, to people who believe that spirits are everywhere and inhabit everything, B. may be the simplest explanation.

Scientifically, there isn't proof of faeries, but you can't deny that it's still a simple explanation. Here's were things get interesting.

It's not as simple as gravity though. In the case of gravity the only assumption is that gravity exists. As this is true the apple had to fall. In the case of the fairies you make the assumptions that they exist, that they are invisible and that they for some reason decided to pull down the apple.

science has proven that gravity exists. it's not really an assumption any longer.

seckle wrote:science has proven that gravity exists. it's not really an assumption any longer.

Well, not exactly proven, but it has a lot more predictive power as a theory than the 'faries did it' hypothesis, ie if you can design a spacecraft to use a gravitational slingshot effect to get to mars using the idea that faries want to take it closer to the ground then I'll be all sorts of impressed. Tbh I think predictive power is a more useful general test than OR.

Also, I'm not sure that OR says that the simplest explanation IS the correct one, just that it's the one that you should work from for the time being. You should be prepared to adjust your worldview if at some point you see a falling apple, say 'I don't believe in faries' and then hear a sad noise and see the apple stop falling in mid air.

Occams razor provides a more difficult dilemma when applying such a simplistic notion to extraordinarily convoluted human behavior. Perhaps I like the principle but only when it applies to inanimate things or specific genres. When it comes to psychology, or anything else where one of the major variables is as fluid as human behavior, Occams razor applied might oversimplify to the degree that real issues are never met....

i.e. women make less money because they obviously aren't as qualified as men in the same position, forgetting to take into account sexism, equality in opportunity, freedom from childcare and mother expected roles, or even to how a woman has been socialized from birth to act in a certain way in relation to men.

bellybelle wrote: i.e. women make less money because they obviously aren't as qualified as men in the same position, forgetting to take into account sexism, equality in opportunity, freedom from childcare and mother expected roles, or even to how a woman has been socialized from birth to act in a certain way in relation to men.

A bit off topic but I was reading about social conditioning in regards to gender. It mentioned that in 1918 (i think) there was a parenting book released that stated that boys should wear pink as it was a strong colour and girls should wear blue as it was easier on the eye. If you ask anyone the same question today then more or less they would say the opposite.

Occam's razor is, in my opinion, fairly useless for sort of use we're talking about here. One must be very careful about the application one puts it to. Occam's razor is a tool that can only be used in order to convince someone who believe in the principle of the economy of postulation, i.e. that one's theory should not contain anything that serves no purpose. Occam's razor can only be used as a justification for holding a view. All too often people misused it in order to make existential claims, e.g. to say that the fairies don't exist because it is not the simplest explanation. Occam's razor cannot be used to make existential claims, it can only be used as justification of a belief. Whether that is a convincing justification will depend on whomever you're talking to.

Whats sharp about Occams Razor?

As a sort of aside, a friend of mine in WoW was a hunter named Occam and he named his main worg "Razor"... It was very cute. He was a good hunter and partying with him always netted the most clever groups because people were always attracted to his name and thought he was so smart. Kinda eliminated the typical 14 yr old "OMG girls have bewbies!!!11!elevnty" quotient...which was already minimal because we were Horde...

anyhooo.....

Occam's Razor is only relevant when you live in a world of people that believe in the supernatural/ religious explainations for the world around us. It was a great method for explaining simple, rational thought processes to people that were densly religious and thought everything could be explained with supernatural/ religious explainations. its not that relevant now cos most people understand that science is generally correct and is often the most simple and intuitive solution.

bellybelle wrote:As a sort of aside, a friend of mine in WoW was a hunter named Occam and he named his main worg "Razor"... It was very cute. He was a good hunter and partying with him always netted the most clever groups because people were always attracted to his name and thought he was so smart. Kinda eliminated the typical 14 yr old "OMG girls have bewbies!!!11!elevnty" quotient...which was already minimal because we were Horde...

anyhooo.....

I r hord.

occam's razor is so ridiculously misapplied.

it does not prove anything ever. its mostly just used by Fundamentalist Skeptics who "know" that mainstream science is the end all be all and that NOTHING WEIRD HAPPENS to dismiss everything that falls out of their known paradigm.

i can't count the number of ways in which people like lloyd's blind FAITH in mainstream science is a ridiculous mental cage.

"Science is the art of creating suitable illusions, which the fool enjoys or argues against, but the wise man enjoys for their beauty or ingenuity, without being blind to the fact that they are human veils and curtains concealing the abysmal darkness of the unknowable."
- Carl Jung

Parson wrote:"Science is the art of creating suitable illusions, which the fool enjoys or argues against, but the wise man enjoys for their beauty or ingenuity, without being blind to the fact that they are human veils and curtains concealing the abysmal darkness of the unknowable."
- Carl Jung

see...that. isn't there any flexibility with a marriage of the two? is it possible to have a sustained synthesis where the individual is steadfast to build upon widely accepted theories while somehow remaining open to the possibility of something happening outside the boundaries? Like....I like to think of Science as a guide or maybe a primer, but I also acknowledge that there is a good amount of experience that can't be encapsulated in known theories and end results. Is it a one thing cancels the other, like to believe in mysticism seems to toss out science and vice versa? Aren't they supposed to be working together? And not together in hopes that eventually one discredits the other. A mutual coexistence of sorts?