The Occam's Razor argument

  • 63 Replies
  • 8582 Views
*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2015, 02:37:21 PM »
Uhhh, the Earth isn't made of lead? Do I have to explain this even further for you?

Or do you think the Earth is made of lead?

Nope.
Are you saying gravity exists exclusively for lead?

Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2015, 02:40:06 PM »
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2015, 02:41:10 PM »
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

Ohhh wooowww. You're so clever, BiJane. You kinda said what I said but changed some of the words. So smart!!!



 ::)
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2015, 02:41:56 PM »
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

Ohhh wooowww. You're so clever, BiJane. You kinda said what I said but changed some of the words. So smart!!!



 ::)

Still waiting for evidence. Is any coming up, or should I get back to my book?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2015, 02:42:45 PM »
Um, are you having trouble with reading comprehension? I don't want to hold your hand here, BiJane.

Maybe you're having a problem with writing clearly? It seems to have been a problem with a number of your posts, judging from how everyone's reacted.
Enlighten us. How did the experiment rely on the Earth being made of lead?
The only way I can see is if you're saying only lead exerts gravity. In which case, why do you think that?

Ohhh wooowww. You're so clever, BiJane. You kinda said what I said but changed some of the words. So smart!!!



 ::)

Still waiting for evidence. Is any coming up, or should I get back to my book?

Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2015, 02:43:52 PM »
Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.

For why you're saying only lead is capable of exerting gravity.

Book it is then.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2015, 02:46:04 PM »
Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.

For why you're saying only lead is capable of exerting gravity.

Book it is then.
He's thinking that they forgot to not make the results based off everything being lead.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2015, 02:47:51 PM »
He's thinking that they forgot to not make the results based off everything being lead.

I know, just figuring out why that's relevant, unless (as it seems) he's saying only lead exerts gravity. Either way, he still needs to offer some reason for that to be relevant.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2015, 02:51:06 PM »
Evidence of what? The Cavendish Experiment used lead balls, dumbass.

For why you're saying only lead is capable of exerting gravity.

Book it is then.

Please explain where I said that, BiJane.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2015, 02:52:21 PM »
Please explain where I said that, BiJane.

If you did not, please explain why it matters the balls were made of lead? Why does that mean the world cannot exert a gravitational pull?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2015, 02:52:39 PM »
Please explain where I said that, BiJane.

If you did not, please explain why it matters the balls were made of lead? Why does that mean the world cannot exert a gravitational pull?

Lead is not Earth. Try to keep up.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2015, 02:54:26 PM »
Lead is not Earth. Try to keep up.

Mm-hmm. So you are saying lead exerts gravity, but other materials do not.
Try to keep up.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2015, 02:55:48 PM »
Lead is not Earth. Try to keep up.

Mm-hmm. So you are saying lead exerts gravity, but other materials do not.
Try to keep up.

Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2015, 02:58:19 PM »
Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

Ahh, evasion. How about you consider committing for once?
I've got a lovely story about life in the 60s to get back to, so if you're not going to commit to some story or another (and I mean explicitly, not just a handwave and insult), I'm just going to read my book.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2015, 03:01:19 PM »
Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

Ahh, evasion. How about you consider committing for once?
I've got a lovely story about life in the 60s to get back to, so if you're not going to commit to some story or another (and I mean explicitly, not just a handwave and insult), I'm just going to read my book.

Go read your book then. I've made my point quite clear and concise. It's you who's doing the evasion by purposely misunderstanding my posts.

Have a nice read.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2015, 03:02:57 PM »
not just a handwave and insult)
I've made my point quite clear and concise. It's you who's doing the evasion by purposely misunderstanding my posts.

Mm, thought so.
Bye!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2015, 03:55:51 PM »
Watch the personal attacks.  This is the upper fora. 

*

Mikey T.

  • 2414
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #47 on: April 08, 2015, 06:58:14 PM »
Well jroa, what can we argue about then, since they got out of hand.  I say you should roll the toothpaste tube from the bottom.  I think you are a squeeze from the middle type of person, and for that... I throw my toothpaste covered gauntlet down 

your turn.

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #48 on: April 08, 2015, 07:10:41 PM »
Nope. Once again you've missed the point. Not surprising really, but amusing.

And careful, your confirmation bias is showing.

Ahh, evasion. How about you consider committing for once?
I've got a lovely story about life in the 60s to get back to, so if you're not going to commit to some story or another (and I mean explicitly, not just a handwave and insult), I'm just going to read my book.

Go read your book then. I've made my point quite clear and concise. It's you who's doing the evasion by purposely misunderstanding my posts.

Have a nice read.

Why does it matter that the balls were made of lead?
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

Mikey T.

  • 2414
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #49 on: April 08, 2015, 07:34:12 PM »
I'm not sure, but you better not be one of those squeeze from the middle toothpaste people, because I would lose respect for you.


BTW  yes its silly.  I am trying to make a point as to why the silly back and forth name calling, strawman arguments, and other crap of this nature is not helpful in any way.

I still think you are crazy to squeeze the toothpaste from the middle jroa.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2015, 07:38:04 PM »
Have you still not read up on the Tamarack Mines Experiments? 


*

Mikey T.

  • 2414
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #52 on: April 08, 2015, 09:37:22 PM »
Way too many changing possible outside variables(air currents), differing results, etc.  for me to take too seriously.  Most of the time they were diverged, but many times they converged, and many times they were basically parallel.  Everyone rushed to theories as to why and there were a hell of a lot of them.  Another thing I noticed was that the distances between the lines were directly measured while the bobs were not. 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #53 on: April 09, 2015, 01:54:31 AM »
The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2015, 06:07:19 AM »
Occam's Razor is a useful idea that is often misunderstood. It is not a rule. It really only applies to a situation wherein two competing theories are equally good at both explaining a phenomena and making predictions. When this is the case, then the simpler theory is to be preferred. If a theory explains a phenomena better and makes better predictions than a competing theory then it wins regardless of how much more complex it is. Period, end of game.

Thank you! The Occam's Razor argument is often overemphasized.

In its original context it was a theological argument. "God is good", so he didn't make the world more complicated than it has to be, for he want us to understand his creation.

In the secular context Occam's Razor is really no more than a good advice, that holds in most cases.

FEers actually should have a kind of Gnostic theology, that is, the world was created by a (imperfect) godhead who does NOT want us to understand his creation, for he has something to hide (that he is imperfect or whatever). So he created a flat earth, but in a way that it seems to be round. By the way I would regard that as a possible  theological position.

The secularized version of that is the Great Conspiracy, which is much less likely, because it actually needs actors who are almost allmighty to be carried out.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 06:16:20 AM by FalseProphet »

*

Mikey T.

  • 2414
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2015, 03:49:52 PM »
The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 
First, i am not a physicist.  I saw where it said in a couple of the articles about it that the only direct measurement was at the top of the mine and the bottom was not directly measured.  bobs or lines at the bottom of the mine.  I am not stating this to be fact, as it doesn't go into detail about how they actually measured the distance between the bobs, sorry the bottom two ends, at the bottom of the shaft.  I do see lots of things like air currents sometimes the measurements were not diverged, sometimes they were converged, and sometimes essentially parallel.  The majority of the measurements were however diverged. 
Now I said I was not a physicist, but I am an engineer and I have performed many experiments.  If the results from those experiments vary by much at all, you must recheck your experiment setup.  Which they did and did not find one but many possible variables for the discrepancies.  They also were not able to place control mechanisms to counteract all the variables that could be causing the errors.   For anyone who does experiments, if the results continuously change by a wide enough margin (actually very very small margin for error before its too wide to accept the results) the results are not accepted. 
If I am designing a circuit that I wanted to test to see if I could use multiple NOT gates to give a random answer and during testing i keep getting patterns, I would recheck my circuit for anomalies.  If I cannot find any physical anomalies and I find that the temperature or humidity of the room may be the cause the errors, I would try to insulate the circuit from the contributing factors(control measures), If I could not i would have to redesign the entire circuit or abandon it.  Now this isn't exactly the same thing but the same practices are used to ensure accuracy.

Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #56 on: April 09, 2015, 04:09:28 PM »
The distance between the bobs was not measured because there are only bobs at the bottom, yet, the lines can be measured both at the bottom and the top.  Are you sure you are some kind of physicist? 
First, i am not a physicist.  I saw where it said in a couple of the articles about it that the only direct measurement was at the top of the mine and the bottom was not directly measured.  bobs or lines at the bottom of the mine.  I am not stating this to be fact, as it doesn't go into detail about how they actually measured the distance between the bobs, sorry the bottom two ends, at the bottom of the shaft.  I do see lots of things like air currents sometimes the measurements were not diverged, sometimes they were converged, and sometimes essentially parallel.  The majority of the measurements were however diverged. 
Now I said I was not a physicist, but I am an engineer and I have performed many experiments.  If the results from those experiments vary by much at all, you must recheck your experiment setup.  Which they did and did not find one but many possible variables for the discrepancies.  They also were not able to place control mechanisms to counteract all the variables that could be causing the errors.   For anyone who does experiments, if the results continuously change by a wide enough margin (actually very very small margin for error before its too wide to accept the results) the results are not accepted. 
If I am designing a circuit that I wanted to test to see if I could use multiple NOT gates to give a random answer and during testing i keep getting patterns, I would recheck my circuit for anomalies.  If I cannot find any physical anomalies and I find that the temperature or humidity of the room may be the cause the errors, I would try to insulate the circuit from the contributing factors(control measures), If I could not i would have to redesign the entire circuit or abandon it.  Now this isn't exactly the same thing but the same practices are used to ensure accuracy.

What are the ideal control measures or conditions to test a circuit? I also wonder if this might be possible to achieve for the Tamarack mines experiment. Perhaps it would be possible to reproduce the experiment in a more controlled environment where more accurate and consistent results could be obtained.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2414
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #57 on: April 09, 2015, 04:48:13 PM »
Well, there are truly no ideal conditions, but if you had access to a climate controlled lab with vacuum chambers, and dust controls (clean room) much like the labs they use to develop semiconductor chips.  With that you would probably be as close to ideal for environmental conditions as humanly possible.  But you want to test circuits in the environment that they will be used.  This is one of the ways circuit design and testing is different than physics experimentation.
As for the Tamarack Mines, it would be very difficult, even with today's technology, to implement control measures. 
I guess if we could theoretically make a large tube that could be set vertically and be miles long, but strong enough to withstand a virtual vacuum on the inside of it, and a way to accurately measure the difference in distance between the top and bottom.  Also you would have to take the rotation of the Earth into account.  Now i know many people here do not believe in this though.  I would have to think about it a bit more to see if the same experiment could be used to prove or disprove the rotation.  I mean if it can cause an effect on the experiment, then you could use the experiment to prove it.  The length of the tube would have to be pretty long to have enough divergence to accurately measure, which would increase the effects of the rotation on it too.

Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #58 on: April 09, 2015, 04:59:49 PM »
Well, there are truly no ideal conditions, but if you had access to a climate controlled lab with vacuum chambers, and dust controls (clean room) much like the labs they use to develop semiconductor chips.  With that you would probably be as close to ideal for environmental conditions as humanly possible.  But you want to test circuits in the environment that they will be used.  This is one of the ways circuit design and testing is different than physics experimentation.
As for the Tamarack Mines, it would be very difficult, even with today's technology, to implement control measures. 
I guess if we could theoretically make a large tube that could be set vertically and be miles long, but strong enough to withstand a virtual vacuum on the inside of it, and a way to accurately measure the difference in distance between the top and bottom.  Also you would have to take the rotation of the Earth into account.  Now i know many people here do not believe in this though.  I would have to think about it a bit more to see if the same experiment could be used to prove or disprove the rotation.  I mean if it can cause an effect on the experiment, then you could use the experiment to prove it.  The length of the tube would have to be pretty long to have enough divergence to accurately measure, which would increase the effects of the rotation on it too.

So if those experimenting on a new controlled Tamarack mines experiment adjusted their results by taking into account the rotation of the Earth it would quickly be dismissed by flat earthers. Seems like a win-win situation for the flat earthers to me.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2414
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2015, 05:25:34 PM »
This is of course true, but the expense would be more than anyone with the funds would want to fund, since the current accepted model is a spherical Earth and gravity.  So by that thinking, nothing to prove.  The flat Earth community is actually quite small and they would have trouble gathering the finances to do the experiment also, so if there was a chance that it would disprove their ideas, they wouldn't want to put money into it either.  So you are at a standoff position there, with neither side willing to finance something that either would not provide any new data or would disprove a weak argument. 
This is one of the difficulties flat Earth proponents face with what they are trying to do.  99% of the rest of the population feel that they are wrong, therefore they will not get the backing necessary to gather the data necessary to prove anything.  They aren't being held to higher standards as such, just a steep cliff they have to climb with all sorts of things being thrown at them to knock them back down.  Plus they do rely very heavily on something that is preposterous to most people, being the worldwide conspiracy.  I am not saying there haven't been conspiracies in the past, but the larger the secret, the more people have to be in on it, and the more people in on it means the more possibilities that someone will talk.  Humans by nature are social creatures and are rather naively think that if they tell their friends or family something it will stay quiet.  Also how hard would it be to keep this big secret when you add in human pride.  This is why many serial killers are caught, they want to tell someone, to brag about it, the secret being something of power that they hold over someone who doesn't know.  If you have power you want others to know about it or you really don't have power over them. 
I'm not saying everyone that could be in on the conspiracy are serial killers either.  (for you jroa).