#2 2013-02-12 13:24:24
I'm going to go with a partial agree since the Latin roughly translates as "avoid needlessly multiplying variables."
What variables are used or given it in the eye of the beholder.
I can't agree with Stanford's definition, however, as very little outside of historical information can be proven in or out of the scriptures. As almost every Theologian alive states, "The Bible is NOT a Science book."
So, why we may not exactly understand how gravity works, we're reasonably confident that God does not dispatch angels to keep us on the ground.
Offline
#3 2013-02-12 13:53:57
Offline
#4 2013-02-12 14:51:10
So, if the correct answer is chocked full of complicated variables, then we should just rely on the simple supernatural supposition?
Offline
#5 2013-02-12 15:14:56
Even wikipedia states that Ockham never created "Occam's Razor", but rather that it was derived from what he did state several centuries later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockhams_razor
Offline
#6 2013-02-12 20:43:44
Lip shitz wrote:
So, if the correct answer is chocked full of complicated variables, then we should just rely on the simple supernatural supposition?
Or the chemical equivalent, yes.
Offline
#7 2013-02-12 21:16:56
I'm not sure about this ockham fellow, but my thoughts have always been something along the lines of 'the simplest answer is usually the best one'.
Of course, me being a fan of Bob and the church of the sub-genius, the second best answer is the one that will make people stfu and enjoy the mysteries.
Offline
#8 2013-02-13 09:36:10
That is so slack
Offline
#9 2013-02-13 17:25:22
The writer of this article violated Occam's Razor. He made the argument more complicated than it needed to be and he threw in posits with no explanations attached. Of course William of Occam (or the lesser used Oakham) would have found today's scientific explanation of the movements of heavenly bodies complex and incomprehensible. But, there was no scientific explanation of the movements of the planets in his day. Therefore, it is irrelevant and spurious to assume what Occam would have thought about the choice between angels of his day and today's law of gravity. "Accepted truth" is relative to the times. Occam was simply saying that any claim must be accompanied by an explanation (unless it is backed by a known truth). That IS the razor. One cannot claim alien abduction or the existence of bigfoot without a credible explanation, in other words, proof.
Offline
#10 2013-02-13 19:01:32
phreddy wrote:
proof.
Very nicely said.
unfortunately, it's irrelevant. As long as you can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, he lives on. All the logic in the world pales in comparison to emotional faith.
Offline
#11 2013-02-13 19:07:38
Lip shitz wrote:
phreddy wrote:
proof.
Very nicely said.
unfortunately, it's irrelevant. As long as you can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist, he lives on. All the logic in the world pales in comparison to emotional faith.
But that's the Razor. It is the claimant who must provide the proof. Unfortunately for Brother Occam, his Razor also applies to the claim that there is a supreme being.
Offline
#12 2013-02-13 19:36:27
phreddy wrote:
The writer of this article violated Occam's Razor. He made the argument more complicated than it needed to be and he threw in posits with no explanations attached. Of course William of Occam (or the lesser used Oakham) would have found today's scientific explanation of the movements of heavenly bodies complex and incomprehensible. But, there was no scientific explanation of the movements of the planets in his day. Therefore, it is irrelevant and spurious to assume what Occam would have thought about the choice between angels of his day and today's law of gravity. "Accepted truth" is relative to the times. Occam was simply saying that any claim must be accompanied by an explanation (unless it is backed by a known truth). That IS the razor. One cannot claim alien abduction or the existence of bigfoot without a credible explanation, in other words, proof.
Well stated.
Lip shitz wrote:
being a fan of Bob and the church of the sub-genius, the second best answer is the one that will make people stfu and enjoy the mysteries.
Bob sold the world so we don't have to, but you can't grow your third eye until you pull the wool over your first two.
Offline
