Timeline for How is Occam's Razor reconciled with consideration of less likely scenarios?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2016 at 9:26 | comment | added | Ixrec | I always understood Occam's Razor as a sort of "tie-breaker", to be invoked after all evidence is gathered and we have no other way of deciding between multiple hypotheses that explain said evidence. Deciding when we're done collecting evidence is the hard part, which imo is equivalent to the Problem of Induction. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:55 | comment | added | Mitch | Religion seems to be a much too simple explanation for things. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:52 | comment | added | Rex Kerr | @ErikE - Those points were not at all clear given what you wrote (both content and tone set by choice of modifiers). Mass hallucination is often cited (by nonbelievers) as a cause of modern miracles. Nonbelievers tend more to go for "It's hard to tell what actually happened 2,000 years ago but there are no shortage of fantastic stories from back then." regarding the Resurrection of Christ. That's why I assumed you meant modern miracles. But, I do of course agree that you need some framework to do your evaluation in and that framework may affect one's view of simplicity. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:48 | history | edited | Joseph Weissman♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 240 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:41 | comment | added | ErikE | @RexKerr I also agree that people can be "radically committed to supernaturalism", but left that out because I was explaining why Ockham the man, himself, might believe as he did. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:40 | comment | added | ErikE | @RexKerr I was not making a specific case for or against Christianity. Your points are well-taken, but shouldn't be addressed to me—the only point I was making was that Ockham's Razor applies after and within one's framework of presuppositions, not before. Surely you agree with that? Obviously, William of Ockham found the existence of God to be the best fit, and that's all I was saying. Look how quick you are to jump in and start arguing, where argument isn't necessary. I didn't mention modern miracles--Jesus resurrecting is a required belief to be a Christian. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:23 | comment | added | jon | You may be interested to read about Walter Chatton's "Anti-Razor", which may be summed up as "one is required to posit no fewer things than are necessary to make the proposition true." Chatton was also a Franciscan, and contemporary of Ockham, who famously caused Ockham to revise some of his views (though not on the anti-razor). | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:19 | comment | added | Rex Kerr | @ErikE - One also needs to explain mass UFO abductions, mass miracles in traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity, hysterical contagion among factory workers, etc.. If you're going to go with "best fit to all the evidence", you kinda need to look at all the evidence. I agree that presuppositions make a big difference, but it's unfair to contrast "God to best fit all the evidence" with "radically precommitted to naturalism", especially given your example. And not all Christians accept the validity of modern miracles. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 22:03 | answer | added | factoriel | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 21:50 | answer | added | Rex Kerr | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 21:00 | comment | added | ErikE | @amphibient One's fundamental presuppositions have a huge effect on what one decides is simple or is an assumption. To a person radically precommitted to naturalism/materialism, the existence of God is far from simple and a very huge assumption. But to a person who finds the existence of God to best fit all the evidence (whether you disagree with him or not), then naturalistic explanations such as "mass hallucination" to explain away miracles are the ones that are overly complicated and involve additional, unwarranted assumptions. | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 15:24 | answer | added | martinkunev | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 8:43 | history | edited | user2953 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jan 11, 2016 at 6:06 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/686428850822221824 | ||
| Jan 11, 2016 at 3:55 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 3:38 | comment | added | Conifold | SEP article on simplicity discusses some variations on the Razor plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity But there also a long tradition that outright rejects parsimony in favor of the principle of plentitude: whatever can exist does exist plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/#PriPle | |
| Jan 11, 2016 at 0:17 | vote | accept | amphibient | ||
| Jan 10, 2016 at 22:33 | answer | added | stoicfury | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 22:04 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 21:50 | answer | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 21:47 | history | edited | amphibient | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 21:40 | history | edited | amphibient | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2016 at 21:29 | history | asked | amphibient | CC BY-SA 3.0 |