Applying Ocam's Razor To BB vs Biblical ID Creationism and EvC

Ocam's razor is a philosopher's tool to make their lives a little easier - beyond trying to organise hypotheses into their most likely order it doesn't and can't solve a problem in science. Science needs evidence and the simplest solution is not a requirement for the correct answer.

Sure, like I said, Occam (or, some would say, common sense) will help you prioritise hypotheses and it would correctly claim that the dog is by far the simpest and most likely solution. But it proves nothing.To prove Occam's preferrence that 'it was the dog wot done done it, yer honour', science would examine the contents of its stomach to find the evidence.Edited by Tangle, : Bloody quote...

Simply saying it's so, doesn't make it so, Buz.You keep claiming to have provided evidence for the belief in a creationist god, but so far I haven't seen any that counts as real evidence - just spectulation and assumption plus a huge pile of many times refuted error.What's your best shot at real evidence?

If that had happened, we'd be none the wiser with or without Mr Occam. If Occam is telling us that if we've already got an answer that satisfies us, it's safe to ignore the preposterous until we have sufficient evidence to consider it, I'm happy to nod agreeably and move on. But if he's saying that he can actually prove anything from first principles with his razor, I'm still waiting to be show how he's going to do it using argument alone.In your example above, science simply shrugs and says 'I'm fine with my answer, show me the aliens'. It doesn't say 'My answer is simpler therefore it's correct.'

I'm not denying your evidence Buz, I'm saying that I haven't seen you present any yet - what I have seen is biblical quotes, assertions and supposition. Telling me to read 8 years of your posts doesn't help me.That has sod all to do with Mr Occam.

Yes, we use the razor all the time, but we call it common sense and I'm fine with that - it's just a fancy name for the bleeding obvious. But it's a philosopher's tool, not a scientists. It may have some use in hypothetical and metaphysical arguments in the common room but in a lab it's not much use (except, as we both say, in ranking hypothesis which we do on auto-pilot.)In your alien example we rule them out because we have no reason to think that they even exist let alone can cause the movement of the planets certainly not because we've (consciously) applied Occam. If someone wishes to to say that it was aliens, we simply ask to be shown us one. The reason we do that is because we need evidence, not argument. We can describe gravity mathematically and we can test its effects. If we could do anything at all similar for aliens you might have a case but if you're pointing to a causation without any evidence, I'm perfectly at liberty to call you on it. Show me this alien. Nope. If we have a perfectly adequate explanation for gravity we stick to it until proven wrong not because it's a supposedly simpler solution than the infinite number of other impossible ideas - including aliens.

We rule them out because there's no evidence that aliens influence gravity. It's as simple as that. If there was evidence then we'd have a look at them and decide.Similarly we rule out pixies, fairies, leprechauns etc etc because we have no reason to suppose that they exist or even that if they existed that they could influence gravity.Occam can help us theoretically rule out the absurd - but it:1. may be wrong - aliens could be influencing gravity (Occam is argument not evidence.)
2. can't distinguish between the equally possible. How does it help decide between pixies and aliens in your gravity problem?