NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, my inability to spell it aside, the Razor is irritating beyond belief. It's great in ideal form, but really - the simplest answer is the right one? That sounds like a lazy path, not a correct one. Also, people using it as evidence for evolution confuses the hell out of me - "God made it, so shut up" seems like a much simpler answer than "Well, something had to happen, and we were the result - we didn't have to be, we are by chance". (I support evolution until I can find something better, but I have yet to hit a better theory and don't expect to).

Can anyone give a compelling argument in favor of the razor?

EDIT: Thanks, fixed the spelling :p /EDIT

Well, first it's Occam's Razor. And i is NOT that the simplest explanation is the most likely; it is that the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is most likely.

Hence, "God made it" does NOT hold up., because it requires one HUGE assumption...

Ah, that actually clears a LOT up - simplest assumption/chain of assumptions makes soo much more sense. I'm going to sit in a corner and feel like an idiot now :D

Ah, that actually clears a LOT up - simplest assumption/chain of assumptions makes soo much more sense. I'm going to sit in a corner and feel like an idiot now :D
That's ok, I only found out a couple of weeks ago. ;)

Ok, my inability to spell it aside, the Razor is irritating beyond belief. It's great in ideal form, but really - the simplest answer is the right one? That sounds like a lazy path, not a correct one. Also, people using it as evidence for evolution confuses the hell out of me - "God made it, so shut up" seems like a much simpler answer than "Well, something had to happen, and we were the result - we didn't have to be, we are by chance". (I support evolution until I can find something better, but I have yet to hit a better theory and don't expect to).

Can anyone give a compelling argument in favor of the razor?

EDIT: Thanks, fixed the spelling :p /EDIT

You are confusing the principle of parsimony (least hypothesis), with global explanation.

In other words, you can always say that god did it. (Or not), so it is not a valid (useful) hypopthesis and should play no part in the application of the razor.

That is not to say that occam's razor is correct per se. It just tends to militate towards the more likely explanation.

Well, first it's Occam's Razor. And i is NOT that the simplest explanation is the most likely; it is that the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions is most likely.

Hence, "God made it" does NOT hold up., because it requires one HUGE assumption... :D can't resist this... so take it as a joke as it's meant to be...


but isn't ONE the fewest assumptions one can have while still having assumptions... I suppose a quarter assumption is an Ass... but still...

Occam's razor is a bit more complicated.

As Wikipedia explains:
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

Occam's razor has sound philosphical foundations, but is also justified by and important in mathematics and science.

Here are some resources to explain Occam's razor:
Wikipedia - Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)
What is Occam's Razor? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html)
Occam's Razor (http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jacob/occams-razor/)
Simplicity, Unification, Parsimony, and Occam's Razor in Science (http://philosophy.wisc.edu/simplicity/)
Why Occam's Razor (http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/occam.html)

:D can't resist this... so take it as a joke as it's meant to be...


but isn't ONE the fewest assumptions one can have while still having assumptions... I suppose a quarter assumption is an Ass... but still...
:D OK, no assumptions is preferable... :p

Occam's razor has sound philosphical foundations, but is also justified by and important in mathematics and science.


Other than as a stylistic point, it can have no foundation in mathematics whatsoever. (Mathematics being a self contained reasoning system).

Philosphically, it has no foundation; other than anecdotal evidence.

As to science, I am sure there are a few counter examples out there.

The razor basically gives you a starting point.

You start with the most basic idea. If evidence suggests beyond that, you have to expand to consider that evidence.

If something struck a tree, and there are dead alien bodies... you have reason to expand. You can't EXCLUDE -evidence-. Just random notions.

So, you know, no automatically assuming Smurfs did it unless you find Smurfy evidence.

Other than as a stylistic point, it can have no foundation in mathematics whatsoever. (Mathematics being a self contained reasoning system).

Philosphically, it has no foundation; other than anecdotal evidence.

As to science, I am sure there are a few counter examples out there.

Meh.

I won't debate with you.

If you were to look at the links I provided, you may learn that mathematicians, philosophers, and scientists disagree with you. But I am sure they are all wrong and, as always, you are right.

As an aside, not only is the simplest explanation likely to be the correct one, but the one that is also elegant in its simplicity.

There are those who get the gut feeling that there's something wrong with string theory, mostly because it doesn't boil down to something simple and elegant.