The Occam's Razor argument

  • 63 Replies
  • 9115 Views
The Occam's Razor argument
« on: April 07, 2015, 07:22:38 AM »
Can flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using Occam's Razor when arguing their ideas? It is not only old, it is ridiculous to use such an argument when your "theories" rely on the most intricate and long lasting conspiracy cover ups imaginable. The hundreds of thousands of photos from space are assumed to be fake. NASA is assumed to be covering up the real shape of the Earth. Satellites are assumed to not exist. All the governments throughout all the ages are "assumed" to be in on it and so on. Hardly the least amount of assumptions. In fact, the conspiracy aspect of these "theories" make them have the most amount of assumptions needed to survive. So please, stop with Occam's Razor.

*

mrparty

  • 36
  • Round Earther
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2015, 07:48:22 AM »
The entire flat and dual earth "theories" are assumed. The only evidence the give are just more assumptions. All the while they try to refute concrete evidence of a round earth.

Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2015, 07:51:34 AM »
Exactly why their use of Occam's Razor to argue their ideas is ridiculous.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2015, 08:22:14 AM »
I have been trying to tell flat earthers this for a while.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2420
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2015, 11:53:05 PM »
Read their wiki page on the subject.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Occams%20Razor
I love the way its used to argue gravity.  If they walk off their chair and fall to the ground, would it be an undiscovered graviton particle or would it be easier to say the earth rushed up to meet your face.
So they can take the most minute theorized only part of a fundamental force and compare it to an effect. 
The occams razor argument should have been this.

So I fall from a chair,
What is the most simple answer?  Which answer has the least assumptions?

That mass attracts mass, and the Earth has a gravitational force attracting me to its surface.  Being a fundamental force, we do not know what quantum field may cause gravity.  Many scientist have tested and verified its effects, and the math can predict celestial bodies movements through the sky. 
Or
The Earth is accelerating upwards, possibly being pushed by an unknown force/energy/matter.  Being a totally assumed thing with no mathematical data that cannot be attributed to gravitational effects, and possibly no mass yet it imparts force, hasn't been observed at all, and was thought up just to replace gravity since the world looks flat from my living room window.

*

DonaldC

  • 194
  • Physics & Philosophy guy, teach science in China
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2015, 12:50:23 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.

As far as what constitutes the success of a theory see what Feynman says about it.

Richard Feynman: In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
"Think of the average person. Now remember how stupid he is. Now realize half of them are dumber than that." George Carlin

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2015, 06:38:30 AM »
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2015, 06:40:54 AM by sceptimatic »

Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2015, 06:44:20 AM »
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2015, 07:09:54 AM »
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.
Occam's razor does work overall. It may not be a fool proof assumption but it does reduce the odds massively by logical thought on it's working's.

It has nothing to do with 6 plus billion people. That is not occam's razor in action. 6 plus billion people can waddle along on blind faith without the use of Occam's razor, as long as their minds are saturated enough, for long enough to make their minds accept nonsense as a logical cause and effect for whatever was schooled into them.

Occam's razor work's as simple as this.

If you push a boat over a continuous curve of water, you can expect that boat to eventually fall down a water fall. We can assume this because we know that water cannot curve continuously to allow a boat to sail around it. It's basic common sense and seen in everyday life.

So now we can assume that if we push a boat around a body of water to not only stay on that body of water but to also sail back to the start - it's fair to assume that we have sailed around a water filled bowl of some description that holds the water in, all around, as a flat body of liquid, allowing us to sail upright.

Ther easiest and most logical answer is there. If you think the first answer is wrong then you have to abandon occam's razor to add in some force that negates logical thought. Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.

Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2015, 08:23:03 AM »
Occam's razor is simple and easy common sense look at what is put before a person, so they can make a logical assumption about what serves best in a situation, based on fewer and less complicated ways to gain a solution or potential solution to a problem.

To put it into context, it's like globalists arguing occams razor due to full on indoctrinated beliefs/faith and believing that their answers give out fewer assumptions and less complicated answers, against a flat Earth view starting with simplicity in itself, as in, look out of your window and see the movement of things in the atmosphere. Then look out to sea and see a nice straight horizon. Use a spirit level. You know, various simple and easy experiments that use the basics and fewer complicated answers.

Occam's razor does not compute to a person shouting, " the sun is 93 million miles away and we spin around it - work the angles and what not, then you will see."

Why does the water stay on Earth? what could the logical reason be.
Occam's razor cannot be used to state an unknown force holding it to a ball, all around.
It can be used to simply say that it is inside a bowl with land around it, on a flat Earth or flatish Earth.
This is logical and requires few assumptions, none of which have to be complicated to understand.

Why do people abandon this?

INDOCTRINATION

That one word renders logic extinct in the willing learner's mind - who sticks to mass opinion - which actually renders occam's razor as extinct to them, also.

You do realize that for 6+ billion people to be indoctrinated or kept from the truth require tons of assumptions. If you read the OP I mentionned that Occam's Razor argument cannot work in FET or DET because of the conspiracy aspect which holds countless assumptions. Therefore I simply ask that flat earthers and dual earthers please stop using that silly Occam's Razor argument, that's all.
Occam's razor does work overall. It may not be a fool proof assumption but it does reduce the odds massively by logical thought on it's working's.

It has nothing to do with 6 plus billion people. That is not occam's razor in action. 6 plus billion people can waddle along on blind faith without the use of Occam's razor, as long as their minds are saturated enough, for long enough to make their minds accept nonsense as a logical cause and effect for whatever was schooled into them.

Occam's razor work's as simple as this.

If you push a boat over a continuous curve of water, you can expect that boat to eventually fall down a water fall. We can assume this because we know that water cannot curve continuously to allow a boat to sail around it. It's basic common sense and seen in everyday life.

So now we can assume that if we push a boat around a body of water to not only stay on that body of water but to also sail back to the start - it's fair to assume that we have sailed around a water filled bowl of some description that holds the water in, all around, as a flat body of liquid, allowing us to sail upright.

Ther easiest and most logical answer is there. If you think the first answer is wrong then you have to abandon occam's razor to add in some force that negates logical thought. Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.

FET and DET both require a conspiracy for their theory to hold up. This conspiracy is ridiculously intricate and is an assumption itself composed of multiple assumptions. Round Earth theory requires no such sillyness therefore RET wins.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2015, 08:41:54 AM »
Gravity negates it if you allow yourself to use it; because you have just taken leave of your logical senses and replaced them with indoctrinated schooling by mass opinion.

Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?
If something is reached as a result of an experiment, it is by definition not an assumption. Originally I'm fairly sure 'gravity' was just used a placehodler term for whatever keeps things on the surface of the Earth: it has since been improved by observation where, for example, Henry Cavendish demonstrated mass attracts mass. This was then used to explain gravity (and now, to define gravity), rather than appealing to some other, unknown explanation.

Using your proposed denpressure, which still fails to explain why horizontal motion is any more possible than vertical, you'll find a number of assumptions there. You state air molecules have a specific structure, you say we live in a dome, etc: do you have evidence, or are those assumptions?
If you have evidence, we'd all love to hear it. Otherwise, what makes your assumptions more palatable than gravity, even if gravity was assumption alone?

*

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 #11 on: April 08, 2015, 12:29:36 PM »
Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?

Have you heard of the Tamarack Mines experiments? 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2015, 12:43:18 PM »
Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?

Have you heard of the Tamarack Mines experiments?

A badly recorded, non-repeatable near-urban-legend? How does that compare?

*

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 #13 on: April 08, 2015, 12:46:13 PM »
Have you heard of the Cavendish Experiment? Do you have any explanation for the effect, which wouldn't directly imply gravity?

Have you heard of the Tamarack Mines experiments?

A badly recorded, non-repeatable near-urban-legend? How does that compare?

I could say the same about the Cavendish Experiment. 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2015, 12:48:15 PM »
A badly recorded, non-repeatable near-urban-legend? How does that compare?

I could say the same about the Cavendish Experiment.

You can, but you'd be wrong. Care to say how either of the two adjectives I used apply to Cavendish? It's well-recorded, and has been repeated in various ways.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2015, 12:48:59 PM »
Following Newton's new law of universal gravitation an experiment was devised to measure the faint gravitational attraction between two lead balls, the Cavendish experiment. This was to create a method of 'weighing the world'. The mass of the Sun could then be calculated from the value of the mass of the Earth. The mass of any star could then be measured by comparing it to the mass of the Sun. But there was an initial illogical assumption made; that the nature of the matter comprising the entirety of the Earth is the same as that of the lead balls. Because of this illogical assumption, the Cavendish experiment is absolute rubbish and can logically be thrown out of any scientific debate.

BiJane, please do not reference the Cavendish experiment again or there will be consequences.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2015, 12:54:40 PM »
that the nature of the matter comprising the entirety of the Earth is the same as that of the lead balls. Because of this illogical assumption...

Don't make me use the image again.
Evidence?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2015, 01:40:56 PM »
Look at the damn Wikipedia article for the experiment, BiBitch. Stop being obtuse on purpose.  Lead balls were used. The fact that you don't know this just goes to show that you do not know anything about the experiment that you've cited. Looks like you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2015, 01:43:26 PM »
Look at the damn Wikipedia article for the experiment, BiBitch. Stop being obtuse on purpose.  Lead balls were used.

When did I say they weren't?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2015, 01:44:30 PM »
Look at the damn Wikipedia article for the experiment, BiBitch. Stop being obtuse on purpose.  Lead balls were used.

When did I say they weren't?

Do you understand implications or are you too austitic for that?

If you are asking for a citation about lead balls, then you don't understand the experiment. Period.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2015, 01:46:37 PM »
Do you understand implications or are you too austitic for that?
Would you care to share how I implied it, then?

Quote
If you are asking for a citation about lead balls, then you don't understand the experiment. Period.

I'm not, I'm asking why you expect matter to have unique properties when it 0amkes up the Earth. Or is it lead that has the unique property of exerting gravity?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2015, 01:51:12 PM »
Do you understand implications or are you too austitic for that?
Would you care to share how I implied it, then?

Quote
If you are asking for a citation about lead balls, then you don't understand the experiment. Period.

I'm not, I'm asking why you expect matter to have unique properties when it 0amkes up the Earth. Or is it lead that has the unique property of exerting gravity?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that you apparently think that the Earth's 'core' is composed of lead.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2015, 01:52:06 PM »
you apparently think that the Earth's 'core' is composed of lead.

You asked for it.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2015, 01:53:40 PM »
Reported.
Read the FAQS.

Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2015, 02:15:57 PM »

BiJane, please do not reference the Cavendish experiment again or there will be consequences.

Pongo accepts the Cavendish experiment results as valid. Toe the line, blighter.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2015, 02:16:49 PM »

BiJane, please do not reference the Cavendish experiment again or there will be consequences.

Pongo accepts the Cavendish experiment results as valid. Toe the line, blighter.

I don't give a shit about what Pongo thinks. The Cavendish Experiment was based on a false premise.
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2015, 02:18:10 PM »
The Cavendish Experiment was based on a false premise.

Still waiting for why.
If you're going to put words in my mouth again, please explain why you think I said those things.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2015, 02:29:25 PM »
The Cavendish Experiment was based on a false premise.

Still waiting for why.
If you're going to put words in my mouth again, please explain why you think I said those things.

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?
Read the FAQS.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2015, 02:30:16 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?

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: The Occam's Razor argument
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2015, 02:31:17 PM »
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.