[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You do realize that this would only have any significance at all if compared to the media coverage of past elections and the relation to how the president in office is portrayed during those elections, right?
Of course, you did.
No. You’re arguing in circles again.
The issue is liberal bias in the media today. Not ten years, not twenty years ago.
Given that Bush was 3 times as likely to be negatively reported on, liberal bias is the best conclusion. Occam’s Razor.
The job of the media is not to present postitive or negative reporting, merely to present facts. And we still don’t have John Kerry’s service record, but we have the CBS News forged Bush records, don’t we?
Prof, you’re too smart to always argue falsely.
Occam’s Razor states: ALL THINGS being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the best.
Without exhaustive research into all of the evidence and factors surrounding an issue, you cannot make a comprehensive explanation (simple or not). It is clear that you have no idea how to apply Occam’s Razor.
[/quote]
Hey, Toddy! This is from Wilkpedia the encyclopedia web site. Simplest explanation is best. No where does it say exhaustive research. Athiests use it to justify their belief there is no god…and you can hardly do exhaustive research into both sides of that, now can you?
Listen: I have tried very hard not to insult people, in fact I’ve praised Professor X’s intelligence–because I believe he is a smart guy.
So why the personal attacks from you to me? Is that the only way you can debate?
Occam’s Razor (also Ockham’s Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.
In its simplest form, Occam’s Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam’s Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.
Variations
The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or “Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”, but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Ockham’s surviving writings. William wrote, in Latin, Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as “Plurality should not be posited without necessity”.
This can be interpreted in two subtly different ways. One is a preference for the simplest theory that adequately accounts for the data. Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data. The difference is simply that its possible for two different theories to explain the data equally well, but have no relation to one another. They share none of the same elements. Some would argue that in this case Occam’s Razor does not suggest a preference. Rather Occam’s Razor only comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power. Occam’s Razor neatly cuts these additional theoretical elements away.
The principle of Occam’s Razor has inspired numerous expressions including: “parsimony of postulates”, the “principle of simplicity”, the “KISS principle” (keep it simple, stupid), and in some medical schools “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras”.
A re-statement of Occam’s Razor, in more formal terms, is provided by information theory in the form of minimum message length.
Another variant of this law is Thargola’s Sword from Nightfall, (originally a short story by Isaac Asimov and later expanded to a novel in conjunction with Robert Silverberg):
We must drive a sword through any hypothesis that is not strictly necessary.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452?1519) lived after Ockham’s time and has a variant of Occam’s razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Occam’s Razor is now usually stated as follows:
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton’s version may be better:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
In the spirit of Occam’s Razor itself, the rule may be stated thus:
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
History
William of Ockham (1287?1347) is usually credited with formulating the razor that bears his name, which is typically phrased “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” In Latin, “entia non sunt multiplicanda preaeter necessitatem”. However this phrase does not appear in any of his extant writings. It is not until 1639 that this phrasing was coined by John Ponce of Cork. There are a variety of similar phrases such as “frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora”, “non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate”, and “si duae res sufficient ad ejus veritatem, superfluum est ponere aliam (tertiam) rem”. These translate as “in vain we do by many which can be done by means of fewer”, “pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity”, and “if two things are sufficient for the purpose of truth, it is superfluous to suppose another”, respectively. The origins of what has come to be known as Occam’s razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such as John Duns Scotus (1265?1308) and even as early as Aristotle (384?322 BC) (Charlesworth, 1956). Even the name ‘Occam’s Razor’ was unknown to William. This phrase does not appear until the 19th century in the works of Sir William Hamilton (1805?1865). It is perhaps how often and effectively he used it that accounts for its association with Ockham. See Roger Ariew’s dissertation of 1976, Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony and W. M. Thornburn’s The Myth of Occam’s Razor.
[edit]
Historical significance
Occam’s Razor was essentially a conviction that natural science (as seen in the works of Aristotle) and theology must split and go in different directions. The 12th and 13th century saw great efforts to unify theology and reason which cumulated with the works of Thomas Aquinas. Ockham rejected Thomas’s “unnecessary” entities such as the active intellect, intelligible species and final causes that Thomas had created to construct a system of thought linking the operations of the natural world with the creativity of God. Ockham said such a construct was impossible and that the study of the natural world, and the study of theology must split. The former is knowable; the latter will forever be a mystery.
[edit]
Justifications
Occam’s Razor is known by several different names including the Principle of Parsimony, The Principle of Simplicity, and The Principle of Economy. The reason for these alternate names can be explained by the association of simplicity and parsimony with Occam’s Razor. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Occam’s Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Occam’s Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Occam’s Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Occam’s Razor is currently conceived of as a methodological principle. Elliott Sober has expressed dissatisfaction with epistemological justifications for Occam’s Razor. He thinks that there must be a metaphysical presupposition for Occam’s Razor, but offers no possibilities (Sober, 1990). For a summary of epistemological justifications for Occam’s Razor see Roger Ariew’s dissertation of 1976 “Ockham’s Razor: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis of Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony”.
