Author Topic: Occam's Razor (Read 550 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 20, 2009, 02:41:12 PM »

I was reading a thread about Occam's razor, and how it applied to cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

People who get all excited about one theorem (e.g., Occam's Razor) become quite foolish in their promotion of it.

It's obvious that the "simple explanation" isn't always the correct one. What about cօռspιʀαcιҽs? And before you scoff, realize that OF COURSE their are cօռspιʀαcιҽs -- unless evil men are forced to remain alone and not communicate with one another, and unless all evil men have an IQ below 70 (NOT TRUE!)

For example, what if two guys got together and conspired to defraud you of your savings? They set up a bank account, got fake IDs, etc. and succeed in bilking you of your savings.

After they got caught, they might claim in the papers, "He never had any money to begin with". What would the average person on the street believe? A) That a couple guys conspired to steal a man's life savings and succeeded, or B) some poor guy failed to save for retirement? Wouldn't Occam's Razor insist on "B"?

Vandaler · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2009, 03:20:54 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

I was reading a thread about Occam's razor, and how it applied to cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

People who get all excited about one theorem (e.g., Occam's Razor) become quite foolish in their promotion of it.

It's obvious that the "simple explanation" isn't always the correct one. What about cօռspιʀαcιҽs? And before you scoff, realize that OF COURSE their are cօռspιʀαcιҽs.

Yes, there are cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and there are conspiracy theories.

I have not seen the conversation that prompted you to post this interesting subject, but I would venture that it was in relation to a conspiracy theory. Most of these, have a few tantalizing factoids that sticks out and seem to beg for an explanation, while all the rest if pure speculation with no evidence to back all the required moving parts for the theory to function.

Against such theories, I would venture that Occam's razor provides good guidance.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2009, 03:49:05 PM »

But if all I can see from my office window is a dog falling over, and I heard a gunshot sound at the same time, it's pretty safe to "theorize" that someone just shot a dog.

In this analogy, people would scoff at me for "theorizing" that someone shot a dog. There would be a derisive label attached to making that kind of reasoned judgment.

Even though I couldn't see the person shoot the dog, and there's no video recording to catch evidence in the affair, I don't see why someone who makes such a conclusion should be called a "tinfoil hat wearer" or some such.

Matthew

roscoe · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2009, 04:01:41 PM »

Could Vandaler be specific as to an example of what he would describe as a Conspiracy Theory that has been debunked using the quantum theory of Occams Razor.

Vandaler · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2009, 04:07:07 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Could Vandaler be specific as to an example of what he would describe as a Conspiracy Theory that has been debunked using the quantum theory of Occams Razor.

Quantum theory only provides guidance.

Nothing as ever been proved by the rule of thumb either.

Vandaler · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2009, 04:14:00 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

But if all I can see from my office window is a dog falling over, and I heard a gunshot sound at the same time, it's pretty safe to "theorize" that someone just shot a dog.

You then have enough information to draw some inferences that are pretty solid.

Quote

In this analogy, people would scoff at me for "theorizing" that someone shot a dog. There would be a derisive label attached to making that kind of reasoned judgment.

No, unless they have reasons to doubt that you either saw the dog fall or hear the gunshot.

Quote

Even though I couldn't see the person shoot the dog, and there's no video recording to catch evidence in the affair, I don't see why someone who makes such a conclusion should be called a "tinfoil hat wearer" or some such.

In this case, you have solid reasons to believe that a dog was shot. Anyone that has no reasons to doubt your information would as well be convinced that the fact a dog was shot is a very likely fact. In fact, Occam's razor would in fact suggest to you that the most likely possibility is that the dog was shot, given the evidence you have.

Vandaler · « **Reply #6 on:** May 20, 2009, 04:15:44 PM »

@ roscoe, I meant Occam's Razor only provides guidance.

Vandaler · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2009, 06:48:37 AM »

In fact, in spite of you, you have shown the beauty of Occam's Razor since your theory, or explanation is the most likely given the information you have.

Any competing theory requires you to complicate the story or add variables thus violate Occam's Razor. Occam says that the most likely possibility is that the dog was shot by a gun.

Author Topic: Occam&#039;s Razor (Read 550 times)

Author Topic: Occam's Razor (Read 550 times)