Occam's Razor

[watsup]

Big Eye insists that his "theory" regarding God is clear from Occam's Razor even though a number of people have shown him otherwise. So here is how a more complete discussion of Occam's Razor begins:

"Do you want to know how you can prove the Earth is flat using Occam’s Razor? Do you want to prove God is the reason for everything in the Universe? Do you want to refute Einstein’s theories without knowing anything other than high-school physics?

Well, I’m not going to tell you how to do those things, since they can’t be done unless you misquote Occam’s Razor — something which seems to be inevitable in almost any argument where it is invoked. I will further show that even when it is quoted correctly, the Occam’s Razor is non-operational in practice and should therefore be dropped from any kind of a rational argument. This is likely why it is so often misquoted when applied.

On this basis I will argue for the complete ban on using the so-called Occam’s Razor in any kind of honest argument or debate."


Please note the second sentence above: "Do you want to prove God is the reason for everything in the Universe?" followed by the note that "can’t be done unless you misquote Occam’s Razor".


For a more complete explanation: Stop Using the Occam’s Razor Principle | by Georgi Georgiev | Towards Data Science

 

[NWO_Spook]

A much abused principle these days unfortunately, as is the term 'common sense'.

 

[WillyPete]

This is perhaps an example of Shaw's Principle:

Build a system even a fool can use, and only a fool would want to use it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

“pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”

plurality should not be posited without necessity

 

[Elora]

I prefer this one...:2razz:

 

[watsup]

A much abused principle these days unfortunately, as is the term 'common sense'.

Exactly. Politically, it is a much used term by the Trump-supporting right wingers because they are too ignorant to mount a thoughtful argument.
The one I like is that there is no manmade global warming and that is “just common sense”, when exactly the opposite holds true.

 

[watsup]

From the article, an example from science in which Occam’s Razor is inapplicable:


“An application of the misquoted Occam’s Razor should suggest that the Gauss geoid concept should be preferred to the modern one, the sphere concept should be preferred to the geoid and the plane concept should be preferred to all others, based on its simplicity. Therefore, an application of this erroneous statement of the Occam’s Razor will lead us to accept the plane hypothesis and therefore to conclude the Earth is flat.

An even more extreme example is God. At least superficially, God is a simple explanation of pretty much everything, so we should prefer the explanation of “God did it” or “God made it to be so” to any other explanation.”


The last paragraph applying to this forum. And, of course, noting it’s inappropriate use by Big Eye.

 

[zyzygy]

A much abused principle these days unfortunately, as is the term 'common sense'.

And it was a sad day when the woos discovered the word quantum. Rarely has a word been so misused.

 

[zyzygy]

“pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate”

plurality should not be posited without necessity

Believers never do demonstrate why a magic god is necessary.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Big Eye insists that his "theory" regarding God is clear from Occam's Razor even though a number of people have shown him otherwise. So here is how a more complete discussion of Occam's Razor begins:

"Do you want to know how you can prove the Earth is flat using Occam’s Razor? Do you want to prove God is the reason for everything in the Universe? Do you want to refute Einstein’s theories without knowing anything other than high-school physics?

Well, I’m not going to tell you how to do those things, since they can’t be done unless you misquote Occam’s Razor — something which seems to be inevitable in almost any argument where it is invoked. I will further show that even when it is quoted correctly, the Occam’s Razor is non-operational in practice and should therefore be dropped from any kind of a rational argument. This is likely why it is so often misquoted when applied.

On this basis I will argue for the complete ban on using the so-called Occam’s Razor in any kind of honest argument or debate."


Please note the second sentence above: "Do you want to prove God is the reason for everything in the Universe?" followed by the note that "can’t be done unless you misquote Occam’s Razor".


For a more complete explanation: Stop Using the Occam’s Razor Principle | by Georgi Georgiev | Towards Data Science

occams razor is not good for religon nor science

 

[watsup]

occams razor is not good for religon nor science

This may be the first and last time we agree on something.

 

[Jonsa]

Big Eye insists that his "theory" regarding God is clear from Occam's Razor even though a number of people have shown him otherwise. So here is how a more complete discussion of Occam's Razor begins:

"Do you want to know how you can prove the Earth is flat using Occam’s Razor? Do you want to prove God is the reason for everything in the Universe? Do you want to refute Einstein’s theories without knowing anything other than high-school physics?

Well, I’m not going to tell you how to do those things, since they can’t be done unless you misquote Occam’s Razor — something which seems to be inevitable in almost any argument where it is invoked. I will further show that even when it is quoted correctly, the Occam’s Razor is non-operational in practice and should therefore be dropped from any kind of a rational argument. This is likely why it is so often misquoted when applied.

On this basis I will argue for the complete ban on using the so-called Occam’s Razor in any kind of honest argument or debate."


Please note the second sentence above: "Do you want to prove God is the reason for everything in the Universe?" followed by the note that "can’t be done unless you misquote Occam’s Razor".


For a more complete explanation: Stop Using the Occam’s Razor Principle | by Georgi Georgiev | Towards Data Science

thank you. I learned something today. cheers.

 

[TypicalRussian]

This may be the first and last time we agree on something.

i suppose