FE's Razor ~ Occam's Nightmare

I've seen several people point out the sheer number of FE theories that are presented in response to just one fact from RE.  The amazing numbers just keep climbing with no end in sight.

I have a theory that it this complexity is one of the things that attracts the "True Believer" to this kind of thing.  Anyone that has been enthusiastic about AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, I was such a nerd) and Trekkies can certainly understand the appeal of a very complex universe that requires great attention to detail in order to imagine "accurately."

From another thread that gave me this idea:

This may seem off topic, but there's a pattern here...

Has anyone ever estimated or actually documented the ratio of how many theories FE'ers come up with to explain how each known myth is false?

I've dubbed this ratio "FE's Razor" (in case I'm the first), and it can be symbolized by FE:RE

Hypothetical Example: FE's Razor for Gravity is FE:RE = Umpteen-Bazillion:One

From what little I've seen in my short time at this particular FE site, I think an overall value for FE's Razor in general might be somewhere around 5 to 15:1.  That is 5 to 15 FE theories to account for 1 RE myth.

There may end up being FE's Razor values for each sub-area of FE's vast set of theories, but mostly I'm interested in some kind of average or mean value if that is possible.  Any statisticians in the house?

Sorry for the hijacking... go back to your drugged airline water, ya'all.

I look forward to your submissions here.  Just choose any sub-theory or aspect to FET (or RE) that you want, and describe for us the number of theories it relies on to account for just one RE fact.

If we do this right, we can create some actual statistics and perhaps come up with some good data regarding how complex this world (FET) really is.

Thanks in advance!

I've seen several people point out the sheer number of FE theories that are presented in response to just one fact from RE.  The amazing numbers just keep climbing with no end in sight.

I have a theory that it this complexity is one of the things that attracts the "True Believer" to this kind of thing.  Anyone that has been enthusiastic about AD&D (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, I was such a nerd) and Trekkies can certainly understand the appeal of a very complex universe that requires great attention to detail in order to imagine "accurately."

From another thread that gave me this idea:

Quote from: Skeptek on June 13, 2009, 08:34:21 PM

This may seem off topic, but there's a pattern here...

Has anyone ever estimated or actually documented the ratio of how many theories FE'ers come up with to explain how each known myth is false?

I've dubbed this ratio "FE's Razor" (in case I'm the first), and it can be symbolized by FE:RE

Hypothetical Example: FE's Razor for Gravity is FE:RE = Umpteen-Bazillion:One

From what little I've seen in my short time at this particular FE site, I think an overall value for FE's Razor in general might be somewhere around 5 to 15:1.  That is 5 to 15 FE theories to account for 1 RE myth.

There may end up being FE's Razor values for each sub-area of FE's vast set of theories, but mostly I'm interested in some kind of average or mean value if that is possible.  Any statisticians in the house?

Sorry for the hijacking... go back to your drugged airline water, ya'all.

I look forward to your submissions here.  Just choose any sub-theory or aspect to FET (or RE) that you want, and describe for us the number of theories it relies on to account for just one RE fact.

If we do this right, we can create some actual statistics and perhaps come up with some good data regarding how complex this world (FET) really is.

Thanks in advance!

Ha!

...define "theories."

I sugest that REers post RE theories about how stuff works, and FEers post the FE version of the same theory. However, we should not discuss about which one is the correct theory, instead, we should only gather data to calculate the FE's razor.

Good question!  At first, I thought I had a good answer, but then I realized that I just don't.

That can be something to discuss here, but I think we will be able to agree on the loose definition for the purpose of this dialogue.

Who knows.  Maybe there will be some ratios going the other way.  I spent 5 minutes staring that this post trying to think of something.  Perhaps someone can throw me a bone...

I sugest that REers post RE theories about how stuff works, and FEers post the FE version of the same theory. However, we should not discuss about which one is the correct theory, instead, we should only gather data to calculate the FE's razor.

I think this is a great way to start.  You know we will get those that insist, but maybe the mods will actually do their jobs... nah.  We'll muddle through, I guess.

WOW!  There ARE mods here!

My new topic,  "FET: Creationism For Dummies ~ Act NOW!" has been hidden in the Angry Rants category by the mods even though it's not a rant nor is it angry.  It's an examination of the fact that FET is actually just the same as creationism from the point of view of a very funny TV commercial.

According to who? To many FEs have different beliefs and when confronted with a contradictory explanation they conveniently say that it doesn't apply to their world for which there is no as yet known explanation.

Like heat and light from the sun.
Requires
UA to suspend the sun and moon or Photoelectric suspension
formation mechanism for giant discs of metal
or orbital paths without mass induced gravitation
or actually reflected heat + light from the Earth as the sun and moon are giant mirrors
different kinds of light that behave differently under EM fields.
light that is affected by the UA even though the Earth is supposedly shielding what is above it.

mechanism of heat and light generation as yet unexplained
explanation of solar flares, sun spots and coronal mass ejections

just a few problems

The one common thread through ALL FE and other grand conspiracy theorists is that they lie about the root of their beliefs.  They will scream until blue in the face that they are scientific and NOT creationists, and turn around to quote that bible-thumping fraud, Rowbatham.

The whole FE religion is based on Rowbatham's book which actually calls the bible "science."

THIS is my big complaint with FE'ers.  Not their system of beliefs, but the fact that they pretend to be scientific, when they know damn well they are religious zealots.

I'm not a religious zealot. I have one explanation for all the RE arguments.
as far as I'm concerned the FEM works just as well as the REM and I don't quote rowbotham.

I'd like to point out that quite a few astronomers are religious zealots

Lies.  You are misrepresenting your beliefs like every FE I've seen here.

You have astronomy mixed up with astrology.  Making the claim without references is a diversion tactic proving my point yet again.

You people really don't get it, do you?

Lies.  You are misrepresenting your beliefs like every FE I've seen here.

lol. Okay, so now you know what we believe and why?

You are making random assumptions and accusing people of lying when they try to correct you. 

Quote from: Skeptek on June 16, 2009, 07:13:35 PM

Lies.  You are misrepresenting your beliefs like every FE I've seen here.

lol. Okay, so now you know what we believe and why?

You are making random assumptions and accusing people of lying when they try to correct you. 

There's nothing random about what I'm doing.  My conclusion is proven time and time again when "FE'ers" (they are not) refuse to debate scientifically, like Tom Bishop, Raist (and his mom), etc.

Your beliefs are based on the bible, Rowbatham's book and the words of other retarded people who believed those.  However, you claim that your belief is scientific and that is an obvious and evil lie.

So far, the average FE's Razor value seems to be around 3:1, with 3 FE theories to explain away each publicly accepted fact.

Has anyone done any real research into the specific ratios for each sub-theory?  I know that some of them will be very high and others will be low.