|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality Our experience of reality indicates that the parsimonious conclusion is significantly more likely to be correct than not doesn't it? Do you at least agree that the no designer conclusion is the most parsimonious? This much at least would seem incontrovertible. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa? Our experience of reality indicates that the parsimonious conclusion is significantly more likely to be correct than not doesn't it? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa? Not as I understand parsimony. Can you parsimonioulsy explain how this zebra came to be the only zebra in Africa?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I think you took a couple of shortcuts in your statement that open it to pot shots. The more parsimonious of two explanations of equal explanatory power is generally preferred.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Sub writes: I think you took a couple of shortcuts in your statement that open it to pot shots. Fair point.
Sub writes: The more parsimonious of two explanations of equal explanatory power is generally preferred. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
As I understand parsimony, it has less to do with counting individual entities and more to do with counting "kinds" of entities. Given that zebras exist, parsimony doesn't suggest that one zebra is more likely than a thousand. Similarly for designers.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable.
Edited by subbie, : Tyop Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is totally irrelevant.
Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
My understanding is that parsimony stipulates the least number of assumptions.
On the basis that we know that the universe exists but have no evidential reason to think that any designer does the path of least assumptions would seem to be that the universe exists without the need to assume the prior existence of a designer. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true. So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Sub writes: The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable. Yep. That makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony. On the basis that we know that the universe exists but have no evidential reason to think that any designer does the path of least assumptions would seem to be that the universe exists without the need to assume the prior existence of a designer. In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: jar writes: Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true. So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available? Of course not and I doubt you will find that I said that, but enough of your childish games. I'm going to play with the adults. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ringo writes: That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony. OK. If we were discussing designers in isolation as opposed to first causes then what you say here would be very definitley true. But if we are talking about first causes then a single first cause must surely be more parsimonious than multiple first causes. Right?
ringo writes: In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one. On the pure designer front everything you say here is true. But on the first cause creator front (which is surely what the underlying issue is here) parsimony would stipulate no designer at all, followed by a single designer, followed by two designers and so on and so forth. Surely the less uncaused or self caused entities under consideration the less assumptions we require? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
As Subbie has pointed out - "The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable" So essentially the more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong.
Do you at least agree that the no designer conclusion is the most parsimonious? This much at least would seem incontrovertible. No?
jar writes: I'm going to play with the adults Don't be evasive. If you have legitimate reasons for disputing that parsimony is a valid method of eliminating the most likely to be wrong proposals then let's hear your arguments.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024