Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Ocam's Razor To BB vs Biblical ID Creationism and EvC
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(3)
Message 46 of 65 (663121)
05-21-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 10:13 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
Conventional science must restort to this deception and to abstract renditions of math, relativity and QM, etc in order to support un-probable and un-observable positions, contrary to Ocam's Razor.
But as you know, and as Rahvin alluded to in his point about the heat death of an infinitely old universe, actual science does make testable predictions based on its mathematical models. How this would be contrary to Occam's razor remains a mystery to me. In fact, nowhere in this thread can I find any instance where you are providing a cogent argument as to why the addition of a sentient entity to the universe renders it simpler. It seems obvious to me that a creator God must entail whatever complexity (understood or not) is found in the workings of the universe plus whatever it is that makes him Him.
If you want to better understand (he said hopefully, yet pessimistically) the problems of trying to model or understand dimensions beyond those we are accustomed to experiencing with our senses, I would recommend the classic "Flatland", by Edwin Abbott.
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : edit typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Rahvin, posted 05-21-2012 3:26 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2012 7:09 AM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 47 of 65 (663122)
05-21-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Capt Stormfield
05-21-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
In fact, nowhere in this thread can I find any instance where you are providing a cogent argument as to why the addition of an sentient entity to the universe renders it simpler.
So far as I can tell, Buz's arguments (and similar arguments from a great many who have heard of Occam's Razor but fail to understand it) are based upon an incorrect definition of the word "simpler."
Buz is using the colloquial definition, and interprets Occam's Razor to mean that "the explanation that I find easiest to understand* or that best satisfies my personal credulity is more likely to be true." The English language is unfortunately deficient when it comes to communicating scientific ideas with any precision.
* - the word "understand" is used loosely here, as typically the "explanation" chosen is not a real explanation at all. A historical example would be the popular hypothesis of phlogiston, which was supposed to be the substance contained by flammable materials which burned. The hypothesis didn't actually explain why phlogiston burned, or what it was other than "that which burns," it was simply a label applied to a mysterious phenomenon that thereby allowed the self-deception of adherents that they actually understood the phenomenon. Buz's internal understandings of science are, by and large, similar - he knows that some words have meanings that relate to each other, and so he uses those words in sentences and paragraphs without actually understanding what the words mean beyond what he's able to grasp through context provided by more common terminology...which unfortunately tends to have very different meaning in everyday use.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-21-2012 3:15 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 65 (663186)
05-22-2012 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tangle
05-21-2012 3:00 AM


If that had happened, we'd be none the wiser with or without Mr Occam.
But with Mr. Occam, we do not give equal time to the hypothesis with the magic pixies. We do (perhaps tacitly) use the razor to decide which hypothesis is more likely true.
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.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
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.'
Well, we need the razor to understand what's going on here. Let's repeat: the predictions of the gravity + aliens hypothesis are confirmed every single time we test it. Is that not the acid test of a hypothesis? Is that not when we elevate the hypothesis to the status of theory? Yes, usually it is. So we need an explanation of why we don't do so in this case.
It's no good saying "show me the aliens", because after all I can't show you gravity. All I can show you is the complete consistency of all observations with the theory. And this works for both the gravity theory and the gravity + aliens theory. So what makes us regard one confirmed by its complete consistency with all observations but not the other?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tangle, posted 05-21-2012 3:00 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 05-22-2012 6:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 49 of 65 (663187)
05-22-2012 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2012 5:40 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
But with Mr. Occam, we do not give equal time to the hypothesis with the magic pixies. We do (perhaps tacitly) use the razor to decide which hypothesis is more likely true.
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.
It's no good saying "show me the aliens", because after all I can't show you gravity.
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.
And this works for both the gravity theory and the gravity + aliens theory. So what makes us regard one confirmed by its complete consistency with all observations but not the other?
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.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2012 5:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2012 1:24 PM Tangle has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 65 (663188)
05-22-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 10:13 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
deleted
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 65 (663189)
05-22-2012 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 10:13 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
Unnecessary post

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 65 (663190)
05-22-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Capt Stormfield
05-21-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
I would recommend the classic "Flatland", by Edwin Abbott.
Excellent recommendation.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-21-2012 3:15 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 53 of 65 (663219)
05-22-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by foreveryoung
05-19-2012 10:55 PM


foreveryoung writes:
Any reaction that results in a reduction of free energy is by definition spontaneous.
Bingo. And that's why creationists' thermodynamic arguments against evolution and abiogenesis are nonsense. Spontaneous increases in structural complexity do happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by foreveryoung, posted 05-19-2012 10:55 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 54 of 65 (663227)
05-22-2012 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
05-22-2012 6:22 AM


The Razor
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.)
Sure, we do it on autopilot, but we also do it, and it is not useless. And there is a reason.
In your alien example we rule them out because we have no reason to think that they even exist ...
Yes, but the question is, why not? And it is nice to have an answer.
We can describe gravity mathematically and we can test its effects.
We can test the effects of the gravity + aliens hypothesis, too.
Nope. If we have a perfectly adequate explanation for gravity we stick to it until proven wrong ...
And yet you don't stick to the gravity + aliens idea until it's proven wrong. Clearly you don't, because it hasn't been proven wrong. It's been proven right every time we've tested it. It's a perfectly adequate explanation for all the observed phenomena within its scope.
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.
In the first place, things that are "common sense" and "bleeding obvious" frequently turn out to be wrong. The Earth, for example, isn't flat.
In the second place, I have, of course, chosen examples in which the right solution is intuitively obvious. But this is not always the case, nor is it the case for all people.
How many times, for example, have we seen religious people attribute to the cause of the universe properties of which the single property had-the-ability-to-cause-the-universe is a proper subset having the same explanatory power?
Here's goldrush, for example:
goldrush writes:
The simplest solution to a "beginning" of the universe from something that always existed is the concept of an existence that is irreducible to a fully functioning Creator with the ability to do anything that is possible - like reason.
Now, when he says that the simplest explanation is an entity that can do anything, perhaps he thinks that he is applying Occam's razor. But he is using "simple" (I think) in the sense alluded to by Rahvin in post #47.
Whereas when I reply:
Dr Adequate writes:
The simplest explanation for the existence of the Universe is that there is something which causes universes to exist. To add to it, as you do, such properties as reasoning power and omnipotence is as superfluous and unsupported by reason as if you added the properties of octagonality and pinkness.
... then I really am applying the razor, because I'm looking for the smallest subset of properties that would suffice to provide an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 05-22-2012 6:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 05-23-2012 5:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 55 of 65 (663305)
05-23-2012 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2012 1:24 PM


Re: The Razor
Dr A writes:
Yes, but the question is, why not? And it is nice to have an answer.
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?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2012 1:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2012 5:49 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 56 of 65 (663306)
05-23-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tangle
05-23-2012 5:41 AM


Re: The Razor
We rule them out because there's no evidence that aliens influence gravity.
And the razor tells you why, despite the complete consistency of all the evidence with the aliens + gravity theory, we are still justified in saying that there is no evidence for aliens.
1. may be wrong - aliens could be influencing gravity (Occam is argument not evidence.)
Anything may be wrong. We decide what is most likely right --- what is supported by evidence, and what isn't. Occam's razor helps us, in this instance, to determine what is and what isn't supported by evidence.
2. can't distinguish between the equally possible. How does it help decide between pixies and aliens in your gravity problem?
It would remove pixies the same way it removes aliens --- because pixies + gravity has a proper subset, namely gravity, which accounts for the observed phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tangle, posted 05-23-2012 5:41 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 65 (663312)
05-23-2012 7:34 AM


O.R. Supportive To. Biblical ID Creationism
O.R. would say that if the Jews, occupying one of the tiniest nations on the planet, were dispersed over nineteen centuries into many nations, inter-mingling the populations of foreign nations of both hemispheres, they would neither retain their Jewish identity or, relatively suddenly as identifiable Jews, voluntarily migrate back from those nations into the same tiny little nation from which they had been dispersed.
For those nineteen plus centuries, the tiny land, from which the Jews had been dispersed, was a waste-land occupied by Gentile herdsmen and fishermen.
O.R. would say that predictions of prophets who lived centuries before the dispersion and over two milleniums before the regathering of the Jews were made, those predictions would fail. ,
Conclusion: This failure of O.R. would be supportive (I say "supportive") to Biblical ID creationism. It would be supportive evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Panda, posted 05-23-2012 7:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-23-2012 8:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 05-23-2012 11:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 05-23-2012 12:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 62 by Rahvin, posted 05-23-2012 1:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 58 of 65 (663313)
05-23-2012 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
05-23-2012 7:34 AM


Re: O.R. Supportive To. Biblical ID Creationism
BS writes:
O.R. would say that if the Jews...
No it wouldn't.
BS writes:
O.R. would say that predictions
No it wouldn't.
BS writes:
Conclusion: This failure of O.R. would be supportive (I say "supportive") to Biblical ID creationism.
Even if you had successfully understood and applied OR, it's failure would not add support to the bible.
If I came home and saw an empty pizza box and my dog, OR would tell me to ignore extra possible (but unevidenced and unnecessary) entities (e.g. pizza-eating aliens).
But if it turns out that a burglar ate my pizza, "This failure of O.R." would not "be supportive" to a burglar eating my pizza.
It would be 'evidence' (e.g. finger-prints) that would "be supportive" of a burglar eating my pizza.
And we are back to using that word you don't understand...
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 05-23-2012 7:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 65 (663317)
05-23-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
05-23-2012 7:34 AM


Chapter and Verse Buz, Chapter and verse.
First Buz, it's very likely you are simply once again misrepresenting what the Bible says unless you can actually provide us the chapter and verse you are using as a prophecy.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 05-23-2012 7:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 60 of 65 (663336)
05-23-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Buzsaw
05-23-2012 7:34 AM


Re: O.R. Supportive To. Biblical ID Creationism
O.R. would say that if the Jews, occupying one of the tiniest nations on the planet, were dispersed over nineteen centuries into many nations, inter-mingling the populations of foreign nations of both hemispheres, they would neither retain their Jewish identity or, relatively suddenly as identifiable Jews, voluntarily migrate back from those nations into the same tiny little nation from which they had been dispersed.
How so, Buzz? Please explain.
So far you have completely mischaracterized what Occam's Razor is. You have completely mischaracterized what the first law of thermodynamics states. It appears that you are doing it again.
O.R. would say that predictions of prophets who lived centuries before the dispersion and over two milleniums before the regathering of the Jews were made, those predictions would fail. ,
How so, Buzz?
Conclusion: This failure of O.R. would be supportive (I say "supportive") to Biblical ID creationism. It would be supportive evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record.
How did Occam's Razor fail? Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Buzsaw, posted 05-23-2012 7:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024