Topic: My own Mussings on Occams Razor...

[Sirgod]

 

Quote:
  Occam is the one that states that given two or more competeing explanations/theories/etc. where all evidence is equal, the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation [given the evidence at hand].

I believe that is the correct quote. However, How can Evidence in and of itself While given contradicting claims to Proof, Be considered Equal given the Human Condition?


Stephen

[Sethan]

Quote:
 

Quote:
  Occam is the one that states that given two or more competeing explanations/theories/etc. where all evidence is equal, the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation [given the evidence at hand].

I believe that is the correct quote. However, How can Evidence in and of itself While given contradicting claims to Proof, Be considered Equal given the Human Condition?

Simple:  Evidence is not proof.

Say a murder has been committed yesterday.  I have a suspect.  A phone call was made the same day as the crime from the suspect's house to the victim's, and neighbors saw the suspect's car at his house for much of the day.

The suspect offers up a Mexican newspaper as evidence that he was in Mexico the day of the murder.  He says he hitchhiked down and back, and so has no witnesses, and that if his car was missing, it must have been stolen and returned.

There is evidence that the suspect was home and committed the murder, and there is also evidence that the suspect was in Mexico.  

Occam's razor would say it is more likely that the paper was acquired in the US, as the alternative is too complex an explanation.

[Sirgod]

thanks for the Reply Seth. I think I understand It abit better, at least Enough to argue It's Denial under Scientific basis/Concepts.

Stephen

[Stormbringer]

Bear mind that The razor does not exclude more complex hypothesis it merely places the most weight initially on the simpler explanations. Should the simpler explanations fail to describe the problem adequately then they must be modiified or discarded and other less simple explantions must assume favor. One way of stating it has been " There is no need to multiply entities unecessarily."  Many rationalists assume the razor forbids ood explanations. Yet often the world is very bizzare in it's workings, certainly complex beyond the ordinary sense of man. Occam's razor makes a good rule of thumb for figuring things out but it is not a hard and fast law of the universe.  

[Death_Merchant]

Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

DO NOT APPLY to understanding the behavior of women!  

[msnevil]

 

Woman must not exist for they can't be explained or rationalized.

Therefore. To believe in woman takes faith.

Or you believe in the "CHAOS" theory.    

[Stormbringer]

Indeed.

[Capt. Mike]

Here's a quote I found:

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Just throwing something out there

Mike
 

[SL-Punisher]

Simple is a subjective concept. In most systems complexity is the rule rather than the exception.

[Sirgod]

 

Quote:
  Occam is the one that states that given two or more competeing explanations/theories/etc. where all evidence is equal, the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation [given the evidence at hand].

I believe that is the correct quote. However, How can Evidence in and of itself While given contradicting claims to Proof, Be considered Equal given the Human Condition?


Stephen

[Sethan]

Quote:
 

Quote:
  Occam is the one that states that given two or more competeing explanations/theories/etc. where all evidence is equal, the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation [given the evidence at hand].

I believe that is the correct quote. However, How can Evidence in and of itself While given contradicting claims to Proof, Be considered Equal given the Human Condition?

Simple:  Evidence is not proof.

Say a murder has been committed yesterday.  I have a suspect.  A phone call was made the same day as the crime from the suspect's house to the victim's, and neighbors saw the suspect's car at his house for much of the day.

The suspect offers up a Mexican newspaper as evidence that he was in Mexico the day of the murder.  He says he hitchhiked down and back, and so has no witnesses, and that if his car was missing, it must have been stolen and returned.

There is evidence that the suspect was home and committed the murder, and there is also evidence that the suspect was in Mexico.  

Occam's razor would say it is more likely that the paper was acquired in the US, as the alternative is too complex an explanation.

[Sirgod]

thanks for the Reply Seth. I think I understand It abit better, at least Enough to argue It's Denial under Scientific basis/Concepts.

Stephen

[Stormbringer]

Bear mind that The razor does not exclude more complex hypothesis it merely places the most weight initially on the simpler explanations. Should the simpler explanations fail to describe the problem adequately then they must be modiified or discarded and other less simple explantions must assume favor. One way of stating it has been " There is no need to multiply entities unecessarily."  Many rationalists assume the razor forbids ood explanations. Yet often the world is very bizzare in it's workings, certainly complex beyond the ordinary sense of man. Occam's razor makes a good rule of thumb for figuring things out but it is not a hard and fast law of the universe.  

[Death_Merchant]

Occam's Razor: one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

DO NOT APPLY to understanding the behavior of women!  

[msnevil]

 

Woman must not exist for they can't be explained or rationalized.

Therefore. To believe in woman takes faith.

Or you believe in the "CHAOS" theory.    

[Stormbringer]

Indeed.

[Capt. Mike]

Here's a quote I found:

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.


http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Just throwing something out there

Mike
 

[SL-Punisher]

Simple is a subjective concept. In most systems complexity is the rule rather than the exception.

[Sirgod]

 

Quote:
  Occam is the one that states that given two or more competeing explanations/theories/etc. where all evidence is equal, the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation [given the evidence at hand].

I believe that is the correct quote. However, How can Evidence in and of itself While given contradicting claims to Proof, Be considered Equal given the Human Condition?


Stephen

[Sethan]

Quote:
 

Quote:
  Occam is the one that states that given two or more competeing explanations/theories/etc. where all evidence is equal, the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation [given the evidence at hand].

I believe that is the correct quote. However, How can Evidence in and of itself While given contradicting claims to Proof, Be considered Equal given the Human Condition?

Simple:  Evidence is not proof.

Say a murder has been committed yesterday.  I have a suspect.  A phone call was made the same day as the crime from the suspect's house to the victim's, and neighbors saw the suspect's car at his house for much of the day.

The suspect offers up a Mexican newspaper as evidence that he was in Mexico the day of the murder.  He says he hitchhiked down and back, and so has no witnesses, and that if his car was missing, it must have been stolen and returned.

There is evidence that the suspect was home and committed the murder, and there is also evidence that the suspect was in Mexico.  

Occam's razor would say it is more likely that the paper was acquired in the US, as the alternative is too complex an explanation.