Occam's razor can be a bit of a red herring. In scientific terms, the obvious explanation is not always the correct one. It is usually a good approximation to 'the right one' based on the available evidence, but usually not much more than that. And, importantly, scientific thinking never claims that is ever more than that!
As an example, Newton's laws of motion are an excellent approximation to the real world but they fall short of explaining ALL observed evidence. Einstein's relativity does a better job - but does that explain everything? Well no - it doesn't. It is simply a better tool for approximating but not a perfect one. Subsequent improved observations and refined theories have improved upon this theory as well. That is the nature of science - it evolves, unlike dogma. There are no absolute claims in science, merely ever more accurate described improvements that fit ever more accurately gathered data.
In short, any scientific theory is only as good as the system of measurement that provided the evidence for that theory.
However, what Occam's Razor does provide is an excellent way of eliminating the hopelessly banal and ridiculous theories from consideration. By the time of Newton's theories it was already apparent that the stopping of the sun in the sky as described in the book of Joshua would be ultimately detrimental (if not fatal) to all life on Earth. Similarly, theories of thermodynamics rendered the description of the 'burning bush' unlikely as described in Genesis; Knowledge of hydrostatics made 'walking on water' scientifically impossible; the development of psychology and the physiology of the brain makes casting out demons into a herd of pigs more than a little implausible.
Religion is primitive, ridiculous, ill-considered bollocks. But merely saying that it is 'because of Occam's Razor', without offering scientifically demonstrated alternatives based on improved methods of extracting evidence is not going to sow a single seed of doubt in the mind of a 'believer.' Knowing that it is wrong is not enough, understanding why it is wrong is everything.
Can anyone make sense of this?
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: Can anyone make sense of this?
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Can anyone make sense of this?
Sounds like something I see on AboveTopSecret. (There is currently a 15 page thread on "the moon is artificial." )Animavore wrote:Maybe they went into statsis for a few billion years until they awoke in the 50's and started paying visitsGawdzilla wrote:IF something created life on this planet at the beginning they're totally fubar, IMHO. For proof, consider that life during the first few BILLION years on Earth consisted mostly of cyanobacteria. How many BILLION years does it take to get something interesting out of slime?
Re: Can anyone make sense of this?
Isn't it?Gawdzilla wrote:Sounds like something I see on AboveTopSecret. (There is currently a 15 page thread on "the moon is artificial." )Animavore wrote:Maybe they went into statsis for a few billion years until they awoke in the 50's and started paying visitsGawdzilla wrote:IF something created life on this planet at the beginning they're totally fubar, IMHO. For proof, consider that life during the first few BILLION years on Earth consisted mostly of cyanobacteria. How many BILLION years does it take to get something interesting out of slime?
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Can anyone make sense of this?
Well, yes, but we didn't want that to get out.Animavore wrote:Isn't it?Gawdzilla wrote:Sounds like something I see on AboveTopSecret. (There is currently a 15 page thread on "the moon is artificial." )Animavore wrote:Maybe they went into statsis for a few billion years until they awoke in the 50's and started paying visitsGawdzilla wrote:IF something created life on this planet at the beginning they're totally fubar, IMHO. For proof, consider that life during the first few BILLION years on Earth consisted mostly of cyanobacteria. How many BILLION years does it take to get something interesting out of slime?
- MedGen
- Primordial Booze
- Posts: 185
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:50 am
- About me: Bad breath: check
Slightly camp: check
Ghastly wife: check
Must be British. - Location: Hanging by the finest of threads.
- Contact:
Re: Can anyone make sense of this?
Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Occam's razor can be a bit of a red herring. In scientific terms, the obvious explanation is not always the correct one. It is usually a good approximation to 'the right one' based on the available evidence, but usually not much more than that. And, importantly, scientific thinking never claims that is ever more than that!
As an example, Newton's laws of motion are an excellent approximation to the real world but they fall short of explaining ALL observed evidence. Einstein's relativity does a better job - but does that explain everything? Well no - it doesn't. It is simply a better tool for approximating but not a perfect one. Subsequent improved observations and refined theories have improved upon this theory as well. That is the nature of science - it evolves, unlike dogma. There are no absolute claims in science, merely ever more accurate described improvements that fit ever more accurately gathered data.
In short, any scientific theory is only as good as the system of measurement that provided the evidence for that theory.
However, what Occam's Razor does provide is an excellent way of eliminating the hopelessly banal and ridiculous theories from consideration. By the time of Newton's theories it was already apparent that the stopping of the sun in the sky as described in the book of Joshua would be ultimately detrimental (if not fatal) to all life on Earth. Similarly, theories of thermodynamics rendered the description of the 'burning bush' unlikely as described in Genesis; Knowledge of hydrostatics made 'walking on water' scientifically impossible; the development of psychology and the physiology of the brain makes casting out demons into a herd of pigs more than a little implausible.
Religion is primitive, ridiculous, ill-considered bollocks. But merely saying that it is 'because of Occam's Razor', without offering scientifically demonstrated alternatives based on improved methods of extracting evidence is not going to sow a single seed of doubt in the mind of a 'believer.' Knowing that it is wrong is not enough, understanding why it is wrong is everything.
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions
If having an identity is to have an essence, I do not have an identity. My sense of self it too varied and contextual - Kenneth Strike
If having an identity is to have an essence, I do not have an identity. My sense of self it too varied and contextual - Kenneth Strike
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: Can anyone make sense of this?
Properly applied, "Occam's Razor" is useful. It is not, however, meant to supply the "correct" answer, just the most likely given the information available.Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Occam's razor can be a bit of a red herring. In scientific terms, the obvious explanation is not always the correct one. It is usually a good approximation to 'the right one' based on the available evidence, but usually not much more than that. And, importantly, scientific thinking never claims that is ever more than that!
As an example, Newton's laws of motion are an excellent approximation to the real world but they fall short of explaining ALL observed evidence. Einstein's relativity does a better job - but does that explain everything? Well no - it doesn't. It is simply a better tool for approximating but not a perfect one. Subsequent improved observations and refined theories have improved upon this theory as well. That is the nature of science - it evolves, unlike dogma. There are no absolute claims in science, merely ever more accurate described improvements that fit ever more accurately gathered data.
In short, any scientific theory is only as good as the system of measurement that provided the evidence for that theory.
However, what Occam's Razor does provide is an excellent way of eliminating the hopelessly banal and ridiculous theories from consideration. By the time of Newton's theories it was already apparent that the stopping of the sun in the sky as described in the book of Joshua would be ultimately detrimental (if not fatal) to all life on Earth. Similarly, theories of thermodynamics rendered the description of the 'burning bush' unlikely as described in Genesis; Knowledge of hydrostatics made 'walking on water' scientifically impossible; the development of psychology and the physiology of the brain makes casting out demons into a herd of pigs more than a little implausible.
Religion is primitive, ridiculous, ill-considered bollocks. But merely saying that it is 'because of Occam's Razor', without offering scientifically demonstrated alternatives based on improved methods of extracting evidence is not going to sow a single seed of doubt in the mind of a 'believer.' Knowing that it is wrong is not enough, understanding why it is wrong is everything.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests