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

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/29/09 - 06:43 AM: Subject: Occams Razor - The Most Important Thing Ever	#1
I love Occams Razor. It the only skill you need to basically achieve anything you put your mind to. Unfortunately most people don't know what it is, and most of those who do just don't actually understand it. I have never heard it put as elegantly than in this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deu...o_explain_explanation.html
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 10/29/09 - 09:15 AM:	#2
Excellent.
Or not.

Slipstick Libby
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 28, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 28

Posted 10/29/09 - 10:15 AM:	#3
mway wrote: I love Occams Razor. It the only skill you need to basically achieve anything you put your mind to. Unfortunately most people don't know what it is, and most of those who do just don't actually understand it. I have never heard it put as elegantly than in this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deu...o_explain_explanation.html Don't forget Murphy's Law. Its the condition of engineering that makes any attempt to achieve what you put your mind to subject to disaster. Edited by Slipstick Libby on 10/29/09 - 10:28 AM

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 10/29/09 - 02:23 PM:	#4
While I think that Deutsch has many points of the history and the science mis-characterized, he does a passable job. However, nothing that he says there speaks in any way about Occam's Razor. Indeed, the segment can be used to speak against Occam's razor. It may very well be that we can create a more complicated explanation that is harder to vary than a simpler theory. The complicated elements may prevent change to the overall theory. The big weakness of Deutsch's talk is that his criteria for good explanation has no relation to empirical evidence. Why should we prefer an explanatory theory that is hard to vary if it does not fit the data as well as a theory that is easier to vary? As I believe Kuhn points out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Not my favourite book, but even Kuhn can get something right), the early Copernican theory of the solar system could be varied just as much as the Ptolemaic theory. Yet there is a reason to prefer the Copernican theory over the Ptolemaic even when they fit the data equally: the central position of the sun explains the quantitative relationship between certain epicycles in the Ptolemaic system that the Ptolemaic system must simply assume (in the Copernican system, this is an explanation of the quantitative analysis of retrograde motion in the visible sky). This is an empirical success that the Copernican system has over the Ptolemaic system, even though in the early years of the Copernican system it fit the available data no better than the Ptolemaic system. To my mind, that makes the Copernican system a better explanation and this has nothing to do with hard to vary or with Occam's razor.
"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?

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/29/09 - 02:42 PM:	#5
mway wrote: I love Occams Razor. It the only skill you need to basically achieve anything you put your mind to. Unfortunately most people don't know what it is, and most of those who do just don't actually understand it. I have never heard it put as elegantly than in this video: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deu...o_explain_explanation.html While this was a generally interesting talk (though I don't see that it had much to do specifically with Occam's Razor), I'm not sure I agree with everything the speaker said. Towards the end of the talk, he rattles off a list of phenomena with explanations which he finds no better than positing a magical explanation, e.g. that some portion of our personalities are shaped by genes. He says that unless one can explain how genes cause or influence certain behaviors, than this explanation is no good. But, this untrue: a mechanism need not be part of an explanation. If controlled studies demonstrate that genes influence our personalities (which they do), the lack of a detailed mechanism for this fact in no way undermines the conclusion. It is still poorly understood how aspirin alleviates pain, for instance, but one needn't have a detailed biochemical explanation to prove this fact: one only needs to demonstrate its analgesic efficacy through a controlled (which includes double-blind) study. If, ceteris paribus, those who take aspirin have a greater relief from pain than those who don't, then aspirin cures pain. It matters not at all how ignorant we may be of exactly how aspirin accomplishes this feat. EDIT: perhaps I am being thrown off by the speaker's use of the word "explanation." I suppose in some sense a mechanism would be necessary for an explanation, but I definitely don't believe it's necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular phenomenon exists.
"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 10/29/09 - 03:53 PM:	#6
I heartily agree with you, Arkady.
"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 10/29/09 - 05:58 PM:	#7
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.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/29/09 - 06:07 PM:	#8
mway wrote: The aspirin example you gave above, shows that our explanation for how aspirin alleviates pain is definitely 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 than aspirin). 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.
"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 10/29/09 - 06:26 PM:	#9
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. Either mantra is not a wise way to do science. 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. 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.
"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?

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:08 PM:	#10
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.
"...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.

Page: 1 2 3

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