Occams Razor - The Most Important Thing Ever: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Occams Razor - The Most Important Thing Ever » Occams Razor - The Most Important Thing Ever

Occams Razor - The Most Important Thing Ever

Page: 1 2 3

Occams Razor - The Most Important Thing Ever

Soylent
People Eater

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 20, 2004

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/29/09 - 08:25 PM:	#11
Deutsch seems quite enamored by Popper and takes seriously the claim that if a scientific theory is contradicted by data that the theory is tossed out. It seems to me that is not entirely true. I don't think science is quite as eager to abandon theories as Deutsch makes it seem. Science does not always perform experiments in order to collect data that confirms the dominant theory and when the contradictory data is collected it suggests a revision of the theory rather than a wholesale change. In such a case the ease of variation of the theory is a helpful thing rather than a detriment. This of course has very little to do with Occam's razor.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:39 PM:	#12
Arkady wrote: No: the above example I gave would eliminate the possibility of a mere correlation and establish causation. Even supposing aspirin does "trigger some other mechanism" (which you hopefully won't put too much money on, as you give no supporting evidence or argument), it is still "the cause." To stick with the medical theme, we are perfectly comfortable, for instance, in saying that radiation causes cancer, even though it triggers a series of secondary events (sometimes taking years) which only then lead to cancer. No I am not perfectly comfortable with saying radiation causes cancer. Once again it is just a correlation, and the actual cause of the cancer is still unknown. To sit back and say that this is a viable explanation is pitiful, and once again shows why your method of thinking halts explanatory progress. Kwalish Kid wrote: Your explanation of the situation here is not only incorrect, it undoes your preference for simplicity! You are saying that because we do not know the mechanism by which pain relief is associated with aspirin, we should posit a more complicated theory through which aspirin causes something else to create pain relief. No. Once again you fail to understand Occams Razor. It has nothing to do with simplicity, it is simply choosing the option with the least assumptions. Please read, and then re-read, and then ask someone to explain this to you. I will give you an example. Take a hammer, and go and hit a light switch with it. Your current logic would say, "Every time I hit this with a hammer, the light turns on, therefore the correlation proves that hammers turn on lights." If you don't have the means to find a deeper understanding, then this hammer theory might be appropriate for while, but it no way is it a good explanation. Can you see why this is terrible? Cadrache wrote: Occam's Razor the most important thing? Hah! I quite literally find it the most inhibiting factor to attaining knowledge - nothing more then the act of arbitrarily assigning a point of view and calling it the true reality. So you find adding unnecessary assumptions to explanations is a great way of attaining knowledge? Please tell me you are joking.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:57 PM:	#13
That's right! I am only slightly joking. For example: We assume that simply because we can utter anything then this allows one to actually claim a proper relationship to a non-simulated reality. There are many, many ways in which to initiate "hard to vary."
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/03/09 - 04:57 PM:	#14
mway wrote: No. Once again you fail to understand Occams Razor. It has nothing to do with simplicity, it is simply choosing the option with the least assumptions. As far as I'm concerned, you are simply describing a specific simplicity preference. Your specific limitation doesn't seem to be any better as a methodological principle than most other simplicity preferences. Please read, and then re-read, and then ask someone to explain this to you. I will give you an example. Take a hammer, and go and hit a light switch with it. Your current logic would say, "Every time I hit this with a hammer, the light turns on, therefore the correlation proves that hammers turn on lights." If you don't have the means to find a deeper understanding, then this hammer theory might be appropriate for while, but it no way is it a good explanation. Can you see why this is terrible? Why is this my logic? Just because you have a terrible methodology doesn't mean that I have to. In the situation that you describe, if I want to turn on a light, I do know that I can do it by hitting a switch with a hammer. But I do not leave it there out of a preference for simplicity, I attempt to make a more complicated theory that might explain the facts better. So you find adding unnecessary assumptions to explanations is a great way of attaining knowledge? Please tell me you are joking. In the hammer example that you set out, we know that we should develop a more complicated understanding of the light, including extra assumptions. We know that adding assumptions is necessary.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 11/03/09 - 05:57 PM:	#15
Kwalish Kid wrote: As far as I'm concerned, you are simply describing a specific simplicity preference. Your specific limitation doesn't seem to be any better as a methodological principle than most other simplicity preferences. Why is this my logic? Just because you have a terrible methodology doesn't mean that I have to. In the situation that you describe, if I want to turn on a light, I do know that I can do it by hitting a switch with a hammer. But I do not leave it there out of a preference for simplicity, I attempt to make a more complicated theory that might explain the facts better. In the hammer example that you set out, we know that we should develop a more complicated understanding of the light, including extra assumptions. We know that adding assumptions is necessary. This has nothing to do with the words simple or complex. We are talking about the most accurate explanation. In the hammer example I am not saying we should find a "more complicated" understanding, I am saying we should find a more correct explanation. One which is harder to vary (and thus contains less assumptions). I can vary the hammer experiment by hitting the light switch with a shoe and retrieving the same results. Much the same way I can supposedly get cancer from both radiation and bread. Much the same way as I can relieve pain with both aspirin or ibuprofen. These are all bad explanations because they can be varied. They can be varied because assumptions are made. Does that make sense?
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 433

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:25 PM:	#16
mway wrote: No I am not perfectly comfortable with saying radiation causes cancer. Once again it is just a correlation, and the actual cause of the cancer is still unknown. To sit back and say that this is a viable explanation is pitiful, and once again shows why your method of thinking halts explanatory progress. Well, mmay, I am sorry to be holding up the global progress of research in medicine. I honestly didn't think I had that much sway in the world, but I am truly flattered that you would think so. I now know that sick people stay sick thanks to my brand of "pitiful" reasoning. But, before you blame the ills of the globe on yours truly, let me ask you a question: what exactly would you consider a "cause"? Because I'm not quite sure you understand the nature of the concept. You do know there are such things as proximate and ultimate causes, correct? In other words, if we are operating a Rube Goldberg-type device and the first step is flipping over a cup which contains a marble, and that marble knocks over some dominoes, which causes water to pour out of a jug, etc etc, whatever happens at the end of that sequence, we are still perfectly justified in calling that initial step a "cause", albeit a more ultimate one than whatever occurred prior to the final step. I am not incapable of distinguishing between a mere correlation and a cause, especially in the context of a controlled experiment. While correlation is a necessary condition for causation, it is certainly not sufficient. Radiation is not "just a correlation" when it comes to cancer, it is a cause, a more ultimate cause than whatever step precedes the initiation of unchecked cell growth. By your reasoning, being shot in the heart doesn't cause people to die because there are several intermediate steps (e.g. massive blood loss) before the victim expires. In my humble opinion, yours is the pitiful reasoning.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/03/09 - 07:10 PM:	#17
mway wrote: This has nothing to do with the words simple or complex. We are talking about the most accurate explanation. In the hammer example I am not saying we should find a "more complicated" understanding, I am saying we should find a more correct explanation. One which is harder to vary (and thus contains less assumptions). But if I simply assume that the hammer is what does it, I stick to a single assumption and I can't vary anything. I can vary the hammer experiment by hitting the light switch with a shoe and retrieving the same results. You should have not even tried anything and stuck with the hammer. You are now advocating that we should assume that hammers and shoes turn on lights! Much the same way I can supposedly get cancer from both radiation and bread. Much the same way as I can relieve pain with both aspirin or ibuprofen. These are all bad explanations because they can be varied. They can be varied because assumptions are made. Does that make sense? Not in the slightest.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 11/03/09 - 07:22 PM:	#18
Arkady wrote: In my humble opinion, yours is the pitiful reasoning. We are considering explanation here, not cause directly. In your example, yes the flipping of the cup is a cause of the ultimate result, and yes you could even devise a theory based on this cause. What I am saying is that to sit on your explanation of "cup flipping causes water to pour out of a nearby jug" is silly, because the experiment can be varied and still achieve the same results. This variance points to a problem with the explanation, and points to a deeper more correct explanation. Radiation to cancer is a correlation. If you can get cancer without radiation, then we have a variance, and the explanation needs to be challenged. Cancer is a bad example, as the result itself (cancer) is a grouping of many different results. As for your shooting example, the cause of death would most definately be listed as something other than "bullet caused death". Given current medical technology it would likely be labelled as blood loss, or organ failure as a result of blood loss, etc (once again this is a bad example, because "death" is also a grouping of many different results). The main point is that the video was showing that we are still rife with explanations based on variable assumptions, and that if we are to continue progressing we need to challenge and improve upon the current explanations by inventing new ones which require less assumptions (Occams Razor).
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 11/03/09 - 07:30 PM:	#19
Kwalish Kid wrote: You should have not even tried anything and stuck with the hammer. You are now advocating that we should assume that hammers and shoes turn on lights! The variance is found when either the hammer is not required to turn the light on, or something else can yield the same result. If we had never observed any variance, then yes that would be the optimum explanation. That is why his seasons example in the video is the best explanation we have, because we have never observed any variance in the explanation.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:37 AM:	#20
mway, nothing that you are saying here seems to have anything to do with Occam's Razor, either in you r definition or any other.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.