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

CLains
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 26, 2006

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 93

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:12 AM:	#21
First, I consider the requirement of parsimony to be kind of mysterious. It seems we just figured out at some point that it actually worked to construct very simple theories and nevertheless have them explain a whole lot. I'm pretty sure this was an unexpected result. Why it works, I'm not sure. Second, the whole debate here seems to operate with the word "explanation", instead of - say - description. If one wants to explain, one has to reduce, and one has to go into that whole chain of reasoning - which is rather philosophical. However, if you confine science to "description", then you don't have the same problem, you only operate with more and more detailed descriptions. You don't have to bother with wondering which "layer" (chemicals/bullet/blood/action/sociology) of reality is the "real" "explanation" and all that, which i would say is already deep into metaphysics. Now, I don't worry about metaphysical speculation and deep philosophy etc. I enjoy it and think it is necessary. But in terms of articulating a sober philosophy of science, constraining it to "description of reality", spares you a lot of trouble. So then you have high-resolution descriptions, simple descriptions, more detailed ones, overall descriptions, metaphorical descriptions, and so on. You'd still have prediction, simplicity etc. because you describe to various degrees beyond what you see, you generalize, like mathematical laws; concise description. Well, maybe that is too radical. I don't know. Just a thought.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 441

Posted 11/04/09 - 03:46 PM:	#22
mway wrote: We are considering explanation here, not cause directly. No: we are considering both. You yourself have addressed (albeit erroneously) the cause/correlation distinction, e.g. in post #12, above. mway wrote: 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. First, I did not use my "Rube Goldberg" example as a means of demonstrating an explanation: it was a means of differentiating between ultimate and proximate causes. While an explanation could potentially be devised for said machine, it's simply not the issue here. I have no idea as to why you harp on variance so much. You seem to believe you are in possession of some grand insight about causation and explanation, but I quite frankly have no idea what you're trying to say. mway wrote: 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. For the umpteenth time: radiation is a cause of cancer, not a mere correlation. The fact that some result (e.g. cancer) is multiply realizable, i.e. can be brought about by multiple means, is not grounds for casting aspersions on any particular explanation. mway wrote: As for your shooting example, the cause of death would most definitely 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). Mmay, as you have here gone on record to say that getting shot in the heart does not "cause" death, is this not a warning sign that your own private notion of causation (whatever that may be) is badly off track? mway wrote: 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). Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. You are obsessed with this notion of variance or variability. You seem to think this is an important point, but you are very far from making this case convincing to anyone else.
"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

Wirya
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 09, 2003
Location: Indonesia

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 126

Posted 11/06/09 - 10:08 PM:	#23
mway wrote: As I stated in my original post, most people who know what Occams Razor is don't actually understand it. It has nothing to do with simple explanations, which is the common mistake. It is the explanation that makes the least assumptions, which can easily be translated to the explanation which is the hardest to vary. The aspirin example you gave above, shows that our explanation for how aspirin alleviates pain is definately a terrible one. While we may have a ridiculously high correlation between taking aspirin and pain relief, not knowing the full mechanics of the process could mean that there are many side effects unknown, and that the aspirin itself still may not actually relieve pain (in fact I would put money on that), but rather aspirin triggers some other mechanism that does (which could be triggered by things other then aspirin). I am not trying to offend you, but your kind of the logic is the kind I see everyday, and it is the reason why medical progress is slowed. The way you're taking Occams Razor suggests that you'd rather live in a dreamy utopian world than face the reality. Assuming that "aspirin relieves pain" isn't a terrible thing to do. Yes I think no sane person would disagree with you about the goodness in making as few assumptions as possible. But human can't always judge correctly whether he's assuming so many or so few. The way you say that assuming "aspirin relieves pain" is terrible suggests that you're taking this matter too far.
"I've always believed that evil is born in a cold heart and a weak mind." - Mike Atkins

Page: 1 2 3

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