krista@ihuxr.UUCP (k.j.anderson) (04/13/84)
<food> Are you *sure* Occam's Razor is a valid principle? I see it used frequently by both sides in creation/evolution arguments. It states something like if two explanations work equally well, the simpler of the two should be chosen for belief. If that is true, can anybody show me why it's true? For example, we see the sun travel across the sky daily. A simple explanation might be that the sun revolves around the earth, but most of us know that the more accurate explanation is a bit more complicated. "Skeptical Inquirer" recently published an article about popular aphoristic fallacies, so this is on my mind. The author's pet peeve was the fallacy, "you can't prove a negative" (i.e.that something does not exist. There is, of course, no validity to the statement. A pet peeve of mine is the tendancy for some people to want every- thing to be packaged neatly into concrete concepts and syllogistic deductions. Life is not so easy. Science requires induction, experimentation, creativity and (forgive me) hunches. This is 1984. Noone could know all knowledge. Not all future knowledge could be derived deductively from present knowledge. We must live with uncertainty or be dishonest. ihuxr!krista (k.j.anderson)
amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson) (04/13/84)
Krista Anderson asks: >> Are you *sure* Occam's Razor is a valid principle? I see >> it used frequently by both sides in creation/evolution >> arguments. It states something like if two explanations >> work equally well, the simpler of the two should be chosen >> for belief. >> If that is true, can anybody show me why it's true? For >> example, we see the sun travel across the sky daily. A >> simple explanation might be that the sun revolves around >> the earth, but most of us know that the more accurate >> explanation is a bit more complicated. Occam's razor (named for the medieaval philosopher and theologian William of Occam [or Ockham]) basically says that if you have two explanations which cover *all the known facts*, then choose the simpler of the two (the formal statement is that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily). It is more a rule of thumb than a universal truth, but it is generally accepted as being intuitively obvious. Indeed, to use Krista's example, the earth going around the sun was accepted as being the simplest explanation for many thousands of years. However, when more facts about the positions of the planets became known, the whole system of epicycles that was needed to predict their orbits just became too cumbersome (Rube Goldberg would have loved it), and the heliocentric system was accepted because it simplified the mathematics considerably. Remember, Johannes Kepler was a firm proponent of the belief that the planets had circular orbits. He abandoned epicycles in favour of elliptical orbits simply because the orbital mechanics of ellipses gave better results (fit the known facts better). John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/13/84)
[]
Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that explains all known
phenomenon is the most likely to be valid. If you can take that to
justify an Earth-centered model of the Solar System you ought to
offer your services to the creationists: they have need of mental
prowess such as that.
Also, I would like to hear it proven than Unicorns don't exist.
Please, no arguments along the line "I've never seen one, you've never
seen one, ergo there are none".
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (04/14/84)
[This Message Rated PG]
Let me see if I can take some of the mysticm and
misunderstanding out of this principle.
Occam's Razor states that given two theories which
correctly model the (scientific) evidence you now have,
the one which assumes the least additional unknown evidence
should be the one which is accepted.
This is actually codified common sense, as most science
is. But to explain further, I give the following example:
Suppose I leave a cat, and a canary in a cage, in the
same room. When I return, the cage is open, the canary
is gone, and the cat is asleep with canary feathers on
its mouth.
There are at least two (perfectly scientific) theories
which could explain this phenomina:
1] Three imps, snappily dressed in tuxedos, poped into
the room from wherever imps pop from, opened the cage,
grabbed the canary, bound it and gagged it, left some
incriminating feathers on the mouth of the sleeping cat,
and popped back out again.
2] The cat ate the bird.
Now while both theories completely fit the evidence at hand,
one of them assumes quite a bit of additional (unobserved)
evidence. Thus, by Occam's Razor, we should accept the other.
Note that the concept of "simple" does not really come into
the discussion at all, unless you recognise "simple" to mean
"assumes the least".
Steven Maurermmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (04/15/84)
==============
Also, I would like to hear it proven than Unicorns don't exist.
Please, no arguments along the line "I've never seen one, you've never
seen one, ergo there are none".
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
==============
Ah, but unicorns DO exist. There were pictures in the papers last year
of unicorns, and they were described in (I think) Science. They are
a type of goat whith horns that have twisted together to give the
impression of a single spiral horn emerging from the forehead, not
unlike the classical description of a unicorn. Now as to the method
of catching them, the requirements don't seem as stringent as the
old stories would have us believe.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt