LHX (or anyone), could you give me a very short summary/explanation of what Maybe Logic is about? I tried looking it up a few times, but the only thing that I find about it is the general concept of that it doesn't regard statements as black/white true/false, but also with shades of grey in between.
That shades of grey stuff is so incredibly obvious to me (given a name like Maybe Logic), that this explanation really doesn't bring me any further.
On what domains does it operate? Does it have strict operators? Is it anything like logical/boolean math or more like a philosophical paradigm?
the second thing i wanted to bring up is this: A lot of people speak about Occam's Razor. I always kind of get a negative feeling when i hear this term, because it is often posed as a surefire certain way to the "Most Probable Hypothesis". I just wanted to point out that this is NOT a universal rule, not al all.
The most that can be said about Occam's Razor is that it is often a good rule-of-thumb, and that it has some parallels with (but is NOT the same as) the way humans reason about what is "Most Probable" given a certain number of Hypotheses and no (much) more background information except the "length" of the Hypotheses.
Occam was never the target of a conspiracy. However, keeping it in the general terms of known information (for example it is more likely evolution than some unknown all powerful entity with strange powers and a strange desire to create misleading data caused our existence), it has its uses.
I believe Maybe Logic works off E-prime, which essentially removes the word "is" (the definite article? I studied Shakespeare, not linguistics) from the language. That removes declarative statements from the language, allowing people to think in different terms about the relationships between objects and attributes.
Maybe Logic seems to address the flaws of comunication along the lines of e-prime (which seems to fit hand-in-hand with Maybe Logic)
Generally, it suggests that definitive statements have little foundation, and it opens the door to investigating why it is problematic to make claims or statements of 'fact'
My advice would be to stick with your 'incredibly obvious' observation - it may not feel very fulfilling, but at the root, thats the principle of the story (perhaps you can say that it works the way words should work - it is pretty obvious)
Maybe logic could have strict operators, as long as they accomodate for the rogue element that manifests in communication flaws between people. The application to logical/boolean math would be interesting because it seems that, to be effective, any of those logical systems would make an acknowledgement at the beginning and end to Maybe Logic to give the whole thing context
anything else seems to be a incomplete picture (or just that - a snapshot of a process that doesnt exist unless there is motion)
as for Occam's Razor - i never even knew what that was until last summer when it started popping up everywhere
it has less to do with "Most Probable Hypothesis", but more to do with the limits of what 2 people can agree upon
again - communication between people is the critical factor to consider when looking at this
you say it is NOT a universal rule - but the combo of Maybe Logic and Occam's Razor suggests that a 'universal rule' (if it existed - which it may) could not be condensed into words (especially english) and transferred from one person to another
you would be hard-pressed to come up with anything that is more useful than a 'good rule of thumb'
especially considering the fact that we are dealing with a changing landscape and different people under different immediate conditions with focuses on different things and looking from different angles
if i see a UFO today, i can come here and tell yall about it, but it would be wise for me to shut the hell up until i can demonstrate something tangible
does it mean you didnt see it? no
but Occam's Razor lets me know that you have good reason not to believe what i say unless you have something visible or tangible to relate it to
Occam's Razor can give a person enough sense to know what people will agree with or acknowledge after scrutiny, and what they wont
like i said before - seeking the best map of the territory rather than having the illusion that some how the map can become the territory
I was gonna say something, but it looks like it's been taken care of pretty well.
Maybe logic means that most things fall between "true" and "false" (or any two opposites), but that doesn't imply "moral relativity", merely a more accurate description of a situation.
Occam's razor tries to eliminate as many guesses & assumptions as possible. In LHX's UFO example, an accurate use of the Razor would be to say, "I saw something in the sky I can't explain right now," rather than "I saw an alien spaceship!"
This thread is immensely helpful to me and am glad to see it. I've always avoided getting into the discussions of Maybe Logic and Occam's Razor because I never really understood what it was about, and wasn't properly motivated to find out for myself. To hear it described it makes perfect sense and makes me kick myself for not looking it up before. Good show guys.
thanks guys. i was familiar with occam's razor, but i was hazy on the 'maybe logic' thing.
That's what you get when you don't read RAW.
Quote from: LMNO on January 26, 2007, 06:27:24 PM
That's what you get when you don't read RAW.
apart from a foreward he wrote to a chris hyatt book, i'm almost entirely RAW-less.
Well, there you go.
I suggest Prometheus Rising, and Quantum Psychology.
I, too, am going to invest in some RAW. I started reading something--I think it was that Prometheus Rising...it's been a while (5 years? I wanna say)--but put it down after a while because my mind started to wander.
But now that I've gotten some basics...this sounds good.
And makes a lot of sense. I mean, do you guys think this Maybe Logic and Occam's Razor are good ways of explaining communication between individuals? Or just another way to say "yeah, you are you and I'm me"...?
Quote from: LMNO on January 26, 2007, 06:39:42 PM
Well, there you go.
I suggest Prometheus Rising, and Quantum Psychology.
funny you should mention those. i had the same two books recommended to me on a completely different (now RIP) forum.
will check them out.
They're the only two "pure" philsosphy books. The rest is hack fiction, amateur sociology, conspiracy, and memoirs.
Quote from: LMNO on January 26, 2007, 07:15:07 PM
They're the only two "pure" philsosphy books. The rest is hack fiction, amateur sociology, conspiracy, and memoirs.
And thats just Illuminatus!
ZANG!
i was looking for this thread specifically
*twitch* that is not Occam's Razor...
Quote from: Requiem on September 12, 2008, 11:25:53 PM
*twitch* that is not Occam's Razor...
Well? Speak up, dammit!
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.
Sporked from Wikipedia:
QuoteOccam'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.
The keywords there, are 'equal in other respects'.
Okay.
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?
Quote from: LMNO on September 19, 2008, 07:03:58 PM
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...
The Razor, unfortunately, only gives a relative probability. Sometimes the unlikely is true.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 19, 2008, 08:52:11 PM
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.
it sounds like its a matter of finding agreeable terms by determinging agreeable conditions and environment combined with K.I.S.S.
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.
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."
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.
Well, shit. In that case, I'm gonna keep using it.
LMNO
-Likes to sound cool.
obviously - any approach that suggests to 'opt for the simplest solution' only holds weight when in a climate of immediacy when time is of the essence
AND can only be responsibly be used if prefaced by the possibility of error (MAYBE)
that being said - if you throw me $12 billion over 5 years - i will swallow all my current conclusions and come back to you in 5 years with a more thorough answer about whatever is in question
maybe part of the problem with studying logic is that these people rarely have their neck in the noose
after wittgenstein got back from the war - his writings were suddenly different
it was all concise and in numerical order as tho he was desperately trying to keep track of things
in layman's terms, the razor seems to be one of the rare circumstances where the formal study of logic tries to lend itself toward practicality
something you can take home and use
There are a few interesting linguistic ways to put these principles into use. These tools are not perfect, but they sure as hell get you thinking and keep you clued in to alternate possibilities.
Try removing the word "need" from your vocabulary, since it is almost always conditional. It'll put you right in the driver's in terms of forcing you to acknowledge desires. You don't NEED to buy more toilet paper for the house -- you just REALLY WANT TO based on your cultural needs, hygiene habits, economic wealth, etc.
Try removing binaries of "good/bad" from your vocabulary, where actions, outcomes, and character traits are concerned. Replace them instead with "skillful" and "unskillful." It's not necessarily bad to lie -- but, considering the circumstances and possible consequences, it may or may not be unskillful. It may not be good for Steve Jobs to be an impetuous asshole, but it may or may not be skillful, depending. And when I rear-ended that soccer mom a few months ago? Well, it wasn't bad of me -- wasn't even entirely my responsibility. But I did some unskillful things that led to that outcome.
Reinforce your subjectivity when making critical assessments. Remind people that it's just your opinion. This is especially important for well-read, well-versed spags like us who tend to pre-meditate our opinions about things, and subsequently feel very confident expressing them verbally. Some people can read that confidence about our opinion as conviction that OUR OPINION IS THE CORRECT AND ONLY WAY. Which in turn makes us potentially look like hypocrites and idiots for conflating opinion with fact.
I'm bisexual, and that pretty much forces you to look at certain things on a continuum-based model rather than a binary model. The Kinsey Scale of sexual identification is a useful middle ground between binary sexuality definition and useless, "there-are-as-many-sexual-identities-as-there-are-people" uber-continuums.
Also, it's interesting to note that in Islam, whenever expressing a wish or hope or plan for the future, you preface it with "Insh'Allah" -- "if Allah wills it." All discussion of God/Allah aside, that's a pretty robust cultural acknowledgment that shit may not turn out the way you hope.
A friend and I developed a lot of these tools as Buddhist practices to develop mindfulness. It is AMAZING to me how well the dharma, Discordianism, and logic studies like the ones in this thread get along together.
Wait, I think I've seen this one before...is this where someone gets up and beats the shit out of everyone with a barstool?
Quote from: saturnine on October 18, 2008, 09:56:18 PM
Try removing the word "need" from your vocabulary, since it is almost always conditional. It'll put you right in the driver's in terms of forcing you to acknowledge desires. You don't NEED to buy more toilet paper for the house -- you just REALLY WANT TO based on your cultural needs, hygiene habits, economic wealth, etc.
Rather that drop 'need' from my vocabulary, I specify that something is needed as a prerequisite for something else. As in, "I need to buy more toilet paper in order to continue to wipe my ass with it without begging, borrowing, or stealing any." The act of tacking on everything you need to make a 'need' statement true is interesting in itself, and highlights alternative ways get what you "need."
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 20, 2008, 12:33:48 AM
Wait, I think I've seen this one before...is this where someone gets up and beats the shit out of everyone with a barstool?
No, that thread is stickied up in Principia Discussions.