Wiki Critique: Occam's Razor

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:02:28 AM

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 09:10:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:02:28 AM

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

If you believe I have not stated a criterion, then it is you who claims that truth is not a criterion for truth.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:17:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 09:10:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:02:28 AM

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

If you believe I have not stated a criterion, then it is you who claims that truth is not a criterion for truth.

I do claim that a standard to which a proposition can be determine to be true is not whether it is true. How is "asking whether it is true" a criterion? Are you saying that if you ask if a proposition is true, then you know it's true? Have you confused asking a question and determining if you have the correct answer? If so, I have a more complete understanding of your failures.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 10:35:26 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:17:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 09:10:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:02:28 AM

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

If you believe I have not stated a criterion, then it is you who claims that truth is not a criterion for truth.

I do claim that a standard to which a proposition can be determine to be true is not whether it is true. How is "asking whether it is true" a criterion? Are you saying that if you ask if a proposition is true, then you know it's true? Have you confused asking a question and determining if you have the correct answer? If so, I have a more complete understanding of your failures.

Asking yourself whether something is true or not would be the easiest and most logical way to discover whether it is true or not. You are adding unneeded steps to the process.

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

If I ask whether something is true where do I find the answer?

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 10:52:02 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 10:35:26 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:17:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 09:10:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:02:28 AM

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

If you believe I have not stated a criterion, then it is you who claims that truth is not a criterion for truth.

I do claim that a standard to which a proposition can be determine to be true is not whether it is true. How is "asking whether it is true" a criterion? Are you saying that if you ask if a proposition is true, then you know it's true? Have you confused asking a question and determining if you have the correct answer? If so, I have a more complete understanding of your failures.

Asking yourself whether something is true or not would be the easiest and most logical way to discover whether it is true or not. You are adding unneeded steps to the process.

What unneeded steps am I adding to the process? What is your process? Just ask the question or do you do more? Do you wait on yourself to answer the question? How do you determine whether you answered correctly?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 09:10:49 AM

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

If I ask whether something is true where do I find the answer?

Pray and then wait for a sign.

Pray and then wait for a sign.

To whom do I pray and how do I recognise and interpret the sign?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 11:21:59 AM

Pray and then wait for a sign.

To whom do I pray and how do I recognise and interpret the sign?

Just pray, why pray to one specific deity when you can pray to all of them at the same time? As far as the sign goes, you'll know.

This is not a productive debate IMHO. All it takes is to establish whether the round earth worldview or the flat earth worldview is more plausible in light of how well they mesh with all the observations we can make. Occam's Razor is better utilized removing elements such as fairies and dragons in the absence of evidence, unless they are posited as explanations for phenomena (i.e. God is posited as an explanation for aspects of the Universe) and then the argument can go in other directions.

This is not a productive debate IMHO. All it takes is to establish whether the round earth worldview or the flat earth worldview is more plausible in light of how well they mesh with all the observations we can make. Occam's Razor is better utilized removing elements such as fairies and dragons in the absence of evidence, unless they are posited as explanations for phenomena (i.e. God is posited as an explanation for aspects of the Universe) and then the argument can go in other directions.

Woah, buddy. Don't go insulting dragons around here. They'll murder you.

Quote from: mathsman on April 19, 2012, 11:28:32 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 11:21:59 AM

Pray and then wait for a sign.

To whom do I pray and how do I recognise and interpret the sign?

Just pray, why pray to one specific deity when you can pray to all of them at the same time? As far as the sign goes, you'll know.

Thanks for that. For one awful moment I thought you were going to be vague.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 18, 2012, 03:58:36 PM

Because I only was talking about the pursuit of truth as the primary goal.

How does a Zetetic know when the truth has been found?  What criteria is used?

Sorry forgot about this thread with my busy schedule. I'm the only one in my college and this major that's balancing 5 studio classes + electives.

Criteria could consist of internal logical consistency, external observational consistency, and the trimming of unnecessary components (including speculative interpretations).

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2012, 04:48:24 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 18, 2012, 03:58:36 PM

Because I only was talking about the pursuit of truth as the primary goal.

How does a Zetetic know when the truth has been found?  What criteria is used?

Sorry forgot about this thread with my busy schedule. I'm the only one in my college and this major that's balancing 5 studio classes + electives.

Criteria could consist of internal logical consistency, outward observational consistency, and the trimming of unnecessary components (including speculative interpretations).

So what are the criteria that permits a Zetetic to know when the truth has been found? (You gave broad categories, not even one specific enough for proper execution.)

How many internal inconsistencies are permitted?
How many outward observational inconsistencies are permitted?
How do you determine when a component is unnecessary?
How do you account for observational errors?
How do you eliminate faulty reasoning?
For example in Parallax's EnaG's Experiment #1, he incorrectly concludes the body of water was horizontal when the experiment would allow him to determine that the body of water was flat.
For example in the same experiment, Parallax forgets to determine by observation that the body of water is standing.

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2012, 04:48:24 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 18, 2012, 03:58:36 PM

Because I only was talking about the pursuit of truth as the primary goal.

How does a Zetetic know when the truth has been found?  What criteria is used?

Sorry forgot about this thread with my busy schedule. I'm the only one in my college and this major that's balancing 5 studio classes + electives.

Criteria could consist of internal logical consistency, external observational consistency, and the trimming of unnecessary components (including speculative interpretations).

And how does FET stand up to this criteria?

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 10:52:02 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 10:35:26 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:17:55 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 19, 2012, 09:10:49 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 19, 2012, 09:02:28 AM

Nope. You're confusing a standard by which to determine a proposition with determining if a proposition is true. You really fail at logic, don't you?

Requiring standards for truth would imply truth can bend to standards. Truth is absolute and therefore the best way to know if something is true is by... asking whether it is true or not.

So you don't use criteria then? Why did you claim otherwise?

If you believe I have not stated a criterion, then it is you who claims that truth is not a criterion for truth.

I do claim that a standard to which a proposition can be determine to be true is not whether it is true. How is "asking whether it is true" a criterion? Are you saying that if you ask if a proposition is true, then you know it's true? Have you confused asking a question and determining if you have the correct answer? If so, I have a more complete understanding of your failures.

Asking yourself whether something is true or not would be the easiest and most logical way to discover whether it is true or not. You are adding unneeded steps to the process.

So you inherently know everything already?
If I want to know what causes aging, I should just ask myself? How could that possibly result in finding truth?
How is this in any way logical? Is it logical to base judgements on belief and feelings rather than observation and actual logic?

Apparently evidence is a circumstantial convenience..

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2012, 04:22:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2012, 04:48:24 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 18, 2012, 03:58:36 PM

Because I only was talking about the pursuit of truth as the primary goal.

How does a Zetetic know when the truth has been found?  What criteria is used?

Sorry forgot about this thread with my busy schedule. I'm the only one in my college and this major that's balancing 5 studio classes + electives.

Criteria could consist of internal logical consistency, external observational consistency, and the trimming of unnecessary components (including speculative interpretations).

And how does FET stand up to this criteria?

I don't believe I said it did.
I only poked my head in when I saw oversimplified definitions of Science and Zeteticism.

However, if we have moved past that, I think the real question is "where do you think FE doesn't fit this criteria?"

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2012, 05:27:16 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2012, 04:22:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2012, 04:48:24 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 18, 2012, 03:58:36 PM

Because I only was talking about the pursuit of truth as the primary goal.

How does a Zetetic know when the truth has been found?  What criteria is used?

Sorry forgot about this thread with my busy schedule. I'm the only one in my college and this major that's balancing 5 studio classes + electives.

Criteria could consist of internal logical consistency, external observational consistency, and the trimming of unnecessary components (including speculative interpretations).

And how does FET stand up to this criteria?

I don't believe I said it did.
I only poked my head in when I saw oversimplified definitions of Science and Zeteticism.

However, if we have moved past that, I think the real question is "where do you think FE doesn't fit this criteria?"

Personally, I don't think that FET fits any of the criteria.  Even something as basic as observing the movements of the heavens is not logically consistent with FET unless one resorts to many speculative components that are unnecessary in RET.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 09:45:54 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 22, 2012, 05:27:16 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2012, 04:22:23 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 18, 2012, 04:48:24 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 18, 2012, 03:58:36 PM

Because I only was talking about the pursuit of truth as the primary goal.

How does a Zetetic know when the truth has been found?  What criteria is used?

Sorry forgot about this thread with my busy schedule. I'm the only one in my college and this major that's balancing 5 studio classes + electives.

Criteria could consist of internal logical consistency, external observational consistency, and the trimming of unnecessary components (including speculative interpretations).

And how does FET stand up to this criteria?

I don't believe I said it did.
I only poked my head in when I saw oversimplified definitions of Science and Zeteticism.

However, if we have moved past that, I think the real question is "where do you think FE doesn't fit this criteria?"

Personally, I don't think that FET fits any of the criteria.  Even something as basic as observing the movements of the heavens is not logically consistent with FET unless one resorts to many speculative components that are unnecessary in RET.

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

I don't know what that means, but I do know that RET gravity does no such thing.

Why would we care if FET is simpler than RET? Occam's Razor doesn't!

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:14:00 PM

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

I don't know what that means, but I do know that RET gravity does no such thing.

If you don't know what that means, how do you know it doesn't do it?

Why would we care if FET is simpler than RET? Occam's Razor doesn't!

The whole point of Occam's Razor is to unveil the simplest explanation.

The whole point of Occam's Razor is to unveil the simplest explanation.

If they have equal predictive power.  FET does not have equal predictive power.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:42:24 PM

The whole point of Occam's Razor is to unveil the simplest explanation.

If they have equal predictive power.  FET does not have equal predictive power.

Yes, that is how Occam's Razor finds the simplest explanation. I simply stated simplicity was the same end-game goal. I didn't apply Occam's Razor to either RE nor FE.

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

Let's try something a little different.  In RET, a basic tellurion can be used to demonstrate the basic principles of sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, the seasonal changes in daylight patterns, solar and lunar eclipses, solstices, equinoxes and phases of the moon.  FET has yet to provide a simple demonstration of any of these phenomena individually, let alone with a single device.  Until FET can provide a comparable device or model, then invoking Occam's Razor really isn't relevant.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 06:14:00 PM

Each has its own elaborate explanations necessary to explain simple phenomena, and both are subject to revision. Some posts here say that observing a flat terrain and consistently downward oriented gravitation produces a simpler model than a imperceptibly curved surface and gravity following radial vectors around that surface. Appealing to intuition would be a fallacy, but the comparative simplicity of these two specific respects could be acknowledged by testing which model is easier for a child to understand.

Let's try something a little different.  In RET, a basic tellurion can be used to demonstrate the basic principles of sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, the seasonal changes in daylight patterns, solar and lunar eclipses, solstices, equinoxes and phases of the moon.  FET has yet to provide a simple demonstration of any of these phenomena individually, let alone with a single device.  Until FET can provide a comparable device or model, then invoking Occam's Razor really isn't relevant.

Assuming no other FE'er has an explanation, then in this specific respect of the two models, I'd agree.
Quite simply, RE is more complete a theory in this particular regard. However, if science has taught us anything, there is a value to admitting when there are unknowns yet to be filled in.

However, if science has taught us anything, there is a value to admitting when there are unknowns yet to be filled in.

There is a significant difference between "unknowns yet to be filled in" and "incompatible with reality".  But, then again, I've always thought that reality was highly over rated, so... 

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 07:30:53 PM

However, if science has taught us anything, there is a value to admitting when there are unknowns yet to be filled in.

There is a significant difference between "unknowns yet to be filled in" and "incompatible with reality".  But, then again, I've always thought that reality was highly over rated, so... 

lol. But, how can an undevised theory of reality be incompatible with reality?

But, how can an undevised theory of reality be incompatible with reality?

Because things that don't exist are generally incompatible with things that do exist.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2012, 08:03:09 PM

But, how can an undevised theory of reality be incompatible with reality?

Because things that don't exist are generally incompatible with things that do exist.

All theories didn't exist at some point.