2 questions about Maybe Logic & Occam's Razor

[Requia ☣]

*twitch* that is not Occam's Razor...

[LMNO]

*twitch* that is not Occam's Razor...

Well?  Speak up, dammit!

[Cainad (dec.)]

*twitch* that is not Occam's Razor...

Well?  Speak up, dammit!

2nd'ed.

[Requia ☣]

Occam's Razor only applies to two otherwise equivalent ideas.

Like most logic rules, the real world tends not to cooperate.  One idea almost always has more supporting evidence than another, and different ideas have different consequences if correct (or close).

In logic Occam's razor is a bit more useful, since without 2+2=12/3 instead of 4.  But its also something pretty much everyone does automatically.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Sporked from Wikipedia:

Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.

[Requia ☣]

The keywords there, are 'equal in other respects'.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Okay.

[LMNO]

So, you're saying that to claim the theory of gravitation is a more reasonable explanation than the theory that Angels sent by almighty Lord YHVH, the Jewish Thunder God, grab hold of a pencil you release and drag it to earth is not technically an application of Occam's Razor?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, you're saying that to claim the theory of gravitation is a more reasonable explanation than the theory that Angels sent by almighty Lord YHVH, the Jewish Thunder God, grab hold of a pencil you release and drag it to earth is not technically an application of Occam's Razor?

I think that may be true. Occam's Razor would only be addressing the question "Why does shit fall?" in one theory we have matter and mass and strong forces, on the other we have ol' Jove and his houseboy angel. Since we have evidence for Matter and Mass and forces... but we don't have evidence for Jove and his band of Merry Men, the Occam is unnecessary.

However, if we were to say argue between the current theory of gravitation and an alternate theory where every particle in the universe was constantly growing in a set ratio, so when you jump in the air, it's your getting bigger+Earth's getting bigger = what appears as gravity... then Occam's Razor would apply. The second one requires more complexity (but not extra non-verifiable elements), therefore it's less likely to be correct.

I think...

[wlfjstr]

The Razor, unfortunately, only gives a relative probability.  Sometimes the unlikely is true.

[Requia ☣]

However, if we were to say argue between the current theory of gravitation and an alternate theory where every particle in the universe was constantly growing in a set ratio, so when you jump in the air, it's your getting bigger+Earth's getting bigger = what appears as gravity... then Occam's Razor would apply. The second one requires more complexity (but not extra non-verifiable elements), therefore it's less likely to be correct.

I think...

That might actually be less complicated than some of the real hypothosies on how gravity works.

[Bu🤠ns]

it sounds like its a matter of finding agreeable terms by determinging agreeable conditions and environment  combined with K.I.S.S.

[nurbldoff]

To compete with the current theory of gravitation using Occam's razor, the Angels theory would first have to be equally useful. It may be able to make reasonable qualitative predictions such as "the pencil will fall", but I doubt that it would be able to do much more without introducing more and more complexity, which would, in the end, disqualify it according to the razor even if it could produce the same results. It's a way of choosing the best tool for the job, and a method for driving in nails that requires you to stand on your head, requires steam power to run and costs a million bucks is not a very reasonable alternative to a hammer, even if it does the actual job as well in the end.

Occam's razor is a way of stating this fairly obvious fact in a way that applies to scientific theories.

[LMNO]

Well in that case, we're gonna need a new handy phrase that means, "You're adding needless and unprovable shit into your hypothesis, in order to justify your conclusion."

[nurbldoff]

Well, the thing is, the explanations don't need to be exactly equivalent in order to use Occam's razor on them; in the case of gravity v. angels, the angel theory can be assumed to at least not be better, and then the razor argument applies.

Usually most explanations can be dismissed just on the grounds of giving rise to more questions than they answer. "Occam's razor" just sounds cool.