Occam's Razor

[theleftone]

We often see Occam's Razor evoked in philosophical and scientific debates. It is often presented and received as "matter of fact" of, at the very least, the most reasonable intellectual tool to employ. It is this which lead me to wondering about the position of it within our thoughts. I began asking the following question.

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

[Scrotum]

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

No its not.

Let´s put it like this simplifying it as much as possible: It more or less forces you to bend to ignorance instead of knowledge (this is why religious people like it).

Why would you learn anything if you are suppose to accept the easiest of fantasies? Lets say that the world was made of a Pink Unicron, thats easy enought, DONE, no more thinking...

unicorndidit.....

[QED]

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

No its not.

Let´s put it like this simplifying it as much as possible: It more or less forces you to bend to ignorance instead of knowledge (this is why religious people like it).

Why would you learn anything if you are suppose to accept the easiest of fantasies? Lets say that the world was made of a Pink Unicron, thats easy enought, DONE, no more thinking...

unicorndidit.....

I've been having this argument off and on with Harvey. In order to use Occam's razor properly the parsimony of each potential explanation has to be accurately measured. This, I think, is where the real problem lies. It is easy to gauge the parsimony of certain explanations i.e. we see that everything in our town or city is soaking wet and conclude that it must have been raining rather than conclude that someone had gone around with a hosepipe making everything wet. But this is only reliable because we know that it often rains and that nobody could use a hosepipe to do this so effectively.

But how parsomonious (simple) is God? I like to say that as omni-everything God should be the least simple thing that we could possibly imagine. It's like me saying I simply want a matter transporter. Talking about matter transporters is simple but building them is another matter! Likewise talking about God doing this or that is simple. But what constitutes God is often left out of the equation.

[harvey1]

But how parsomonious (simple) is God? I like to say that as omni-everything God should be the least simple thing that we could possibly imagine.

I don't think this is the case at all. It follows naturally if propositions exist and have truth value.

[hannahjoy]

Let´s put it like this simplifying it as much as possible: It more or less forces you to bend to ignorance instead of knowledge (this is why religious people like it).

The only times I've seen it mentioned have been by atheists as proof against the existence of God.

[Scrotum]

The only times I've seen it mentioned have been by atheists as proof against the existence of God.

Perhaps you could explain to the audience how these atheist´s manage to prove the none-existence of something....... I would really want to know.

[hannahjoy]

I didn't say they had managed to prove it. They try to prove it using Occam's Razor. They bring it up as if it were undeniable proof against God.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

It is a reasonable concept to employ, but may be dangerous to submit to in excess. All outcomes/causes must be considered. We can conclude, for example (using QED's analogy), that the ground is wet because it rained, but we can not count the hosepipe theory out of the realm of possibility. More outlandish things have occurred afterall, and such closed-mindedness in the public eye has hindered their acceptance.

Indeed, the issue underlies how much weight one is willing to give to each particular explanation. Being as this is subject to perception, Occam's Wager is difficult to apply to most scientific dillemas.

My answer is that it is justifyable (to a reasonable extent).

Why would you learn anything if you are suppose to accept the easiest of fantasies? Lets say that the world was made of a Pink Unicron, thats easy enought, DONE, no more thinking...

I'm not sure that this is the proper illustration. Most people I know would have a difficult time accepting the existance of an omnipotent pink unicorn.

To me, Occam's Razor seems to apply more readily to your worldview. What you see is what you get, and is the simplest of explanations based on current knowledge.

Of course, this just goes to show the fallibility of the Razor. Some people will naturally see God as the simplest explanation, and others vice-versa.

[Bugmaster]

Is Occam's Razor self-evident, justifiable, or not justifiable? Why?

It'd say that it's self-evident, and justifiable.

Self-evident, because we use it implicitly every day. For example, did you know that I own a purple elephant named Binky ? Did you just believe that statement ? Why or why not ?

Justifiable, because Occam's Razor deals with minimizing the number of assumptions. Each assumption has a chance of being false (that's what makes it an assumption); multiple assumptions have the probability of being false equal to the product of their individual probabilities. Therefore, the more assumptions you make, and the wilder they are, the higher your chances of being wrong.

[QED]

But how parsomonious (simple) is God? I like to say that as omni-everything God should be the least simple thing that we could possibly imagine.

I don't think this is the case at all. It follows naturally if propositions exist and have truth value.

Of course, this just goes to show the fallibility of the Razor. Some people will naturally see God as the simplest explanation, and others vice-versa.

Are these people "naturally seeing God as the simplest explanation" because they understand that "it is a natural conclusion if propositions exist and have truth value."? I think not. How would they justify their conviction that God was such a simple option?