Occam's Razor

[Marquis de Sade]

Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
For the benefit of theists willing to listen, this is why the burden of proof lies in your court.

If a tree is found burnt in a field, it may have been struck by lightning, or an alien spacecraft may have destroyed it with a microwave death-ray.

The simplest, (i.e. most likely), explination is best.

So, when an atheist claims that evolution is far more rational than creationism, and atheism is far more rational than theism - the burden of proof dosent lie on us, but on those people who are trying to claim a giant invisible supernatural entity that likes to smite stuff exists.

Given the Problem of Evil, the Problem of Hell (humans can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet Hell is essentially infinite punishment, and common sense seems to suggest that few (if any) people deserve such punishment), and various other arguments, one has to wonder also, if those who follow Abrahamic dogma arnt all immoral people too, as they seem to condone acts of genocide, torture, discrimination, etc, within their superstitious system of supernatural beliefs.

[WITHTEETH]

Intresting sade, i completely forgot about this idea.
It would seem theist would hide behind false information and say
"well, your theories are proven false see, thus there is a god"
This is mostly thanks to talkorirgins hoax on creating custom suited scietific data that fits into their belief. Its unethical to twist scientific data.
Words, words, words! to bad its not a perfect system, instead its easy to dance around them all day and bend them to alter definitions and statistics.

[Philboid Studge]

Marquis, I'm with you re burden of proof. But I suspect that most x-psychotics believe that theirs is the simpler explanation with questions like the origin of the universe, evolution of life on Earth, etc. Which is easier (read: simpler) to do, fully educate yourself about evolution, abiogenesis, the multiverse, string theories, et cetera -- or believe in an Almighty Smiter that your parents (and every generation before you) believed in?

[WITHTEETH]

Yes Philboid, but thats because they are unaware that we are talkign about making less assumptions, and more steps. Assumptions would be something we can't prove, steps meaning a stairwell of information to make a conclusion rationally that evolution is true.

[Philboid Studge]

Agreed. By the way, on what basis do we assume Occam's Razor to be an efficacious guideline?

[Sternwallow]

I have observed many kinds of problem over many decades. So far, most of them require medium to grossly complex solutions. Of those that seem to have a simple solution, a few truly are simple, but the bulk require an agency that is, itself very complex. The case of creation is like this. It seems so simple to say "God did it", but, by definition, God must be more complex than the entire universe. I am willing to accept God as the author of all that was created only on condition that all of the relevant attributes of God be explained by a testable theory. A good start would be how, in detail, does God create quarks?

[Philboid Studge]

Just so. It seems like the simpler explanation to believe in God, but in fact such belief merely adds an unnecessary level of complexity ...

[WITHTEETH]

Well its just as easy to say "Its evolution", then to say "its god". I guess thats because those people don't bother to think how god actually works.
Not only are they blind but ignorant.

[Sternwallow]

Well its[sic] just as easy to say "Its[sic] evolution", then[sic] to say "its[sic] god".
Ah, but the understanding of those two phrases becomes:
"It's evolution which can be shown and which identifies the history and mechanisms of biological change through demonstrable variation and population selection driven by environmantal factors..."

"It's God, about whom we can know nothing." (Not even that He is the right god to blame for creation)

[WITHTEETH]

Thats where faith comes in again. teaching them not to be curious because it kills the cat (first sin).
faith [fayth]
(plural faiths)
noun
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Tenspace]

Marquis, I'm with you re burden of proof. But I suspect that most x-psychotics believe that theirs is the simpler explanation with questions like the origin of the universe, evolution of life on Earth, etc. Which is easier (read: simpler) to do, fully educate yourself about evolution, abiogenesis, the multiverse, string theories, et cetera -- or believe in an Almighty Smiter that your parents (and every generation before you) believed in?
Change is progress. For good or bad, things progress. Theists have always resisted change. There're probably a deep motivation that makes it beneficial in certain environments for humans to resist change. But in the end, change always wins.

Arguing from incomplete information is bearing false witness. A christian is breaking their moral law by not learning all they can about a topic before they pass judgement on the subject at hand.

The simpler explanation must carry no weight. It must not require additional explanations in order to clarify its original meaning. This is a corollary to old Ockham's postulate. That is where the theist fails in using Occam's razor to simplify God.

[whoneedscience]

Change is progress. For good or bad, things progress. Theists have always resisted change. There're probably a deep motivation that makes it beneficial in certain environments for humans to resist change. But in the end, change always wins.
Just a tangent, but I've never thought about this before. Are you saying that theists are inherently conservative, or just about religious issues like creation? Some of the most hopelesly theistic people I know are also fairly liberal.

Arguing from incomplete information is bearing false witness. A christian is breaking their moral law by not learning all they can about a topic before they pass judgement on the subject at hand.
:lol: nice. Very true, as well.

The simpler explanation must carry no weight. It must not require additional explanations in order to clarify its original meaning. This is a corollary to old Ockham's postulate. That is where the theist fails in using Occam's razor to simplify God.
I'm not sure it's really connected to the simpler explanation, but the fewer and simpler assumptions, as someone else suggested. Math, for instance, uses a lot of explanations, but its only assumptions are based on logic, and are very few. You are right, of course, in saying that additional and more complex explanations would detract from the original, but only as far as the quality of assumptions made.

Also, theories like Natural Selection are based on many assumptions and explanations from multiple fields of study. In a case like this, I think it best to say that unrelated assumptions that become concurrent through reasoning and explanation actually serve to reinforce the original argument. Each branch of reasoning would serve as its own simple explanation, and the total simplicity could be thought of as being divided by all the other sub-simplicities.

Where's Rhinoq for this?

[Tenspace]

Change is progress. For good or bad, things progress. Theists have always resisted change. There're probably a deep motivation that makes it beneficial in certain environments for humans to resist change. But in the end, change always wins.
Just a tangent, but I've never thought about this before. Are you saying that theists are inherently conservative, or just about religious issues like creation? Some of the most hopelesly theistic people I know are also fairly liberal.
Conservative, not in a political sense, but in the sense that they wish things in their lives to stay the same. Maybe it's an attempt to avoid complexity.

The simpler explanation must carry no weight. It must not require additional explanations in order to clarify its original meaning. This is a corollary to old Ockham's postulate. That is where the theist fails in using Occam's razor to simplify God.
I'm not sure it's really connected to the simpler explanation, but the fewer and simpler assumptions, as someone else suggested. Math, for instance, uses a lot of explanations, but its only assumptions are based on logic, and are very few. You are right, of course, in saying that additional and more complex explanations would detract from the original, but only as far as the quality of assumptions made.
I think we should look deeper. It's simple to assume that God created everything, but it's not simple to explain those assumptions.

Also, theories like Natural Selection are based on many assumptions and explanations from multiple fields of study. In a case like this, I think it best to say that unrelated assumptions that become concurrent through reasoning and explanation actually serve to reinforce the original argument. Each branch of reasoning would serve as its own simple explanation, and the total simplicity could be thought of as being divided by all the other sub-simplicities.

Where's Rhinoq for this?
But scientific assumptions can be explained. That's my point. Theists use false assumptions when they attempt to use Occam's razor to simplify everything to "God did it". They cannot provide explanations as to how.

[Tenspace]

I would at this point suggest we could classify humans into two types: those who seek complexity (the nomads, pioneers, migrating tribes) and those who seek simplicity (agrarian, sedentary, communal lifestyle).

Hmm.... just a thought

[Marquis de Sade]

I have observed many kinds of problem over many decades. So far, most of them require medium to grossly complex solutions. Of those that seem to have a simple solution, a few truly are simple, but the bulk require an agency that is, itself very complex. The case of creation is like this. It seems so simple to say "God did it", but, by definition, God must be more complex than the entire universe. I am willing to accept God as the author of all that was created only on condition that all of the relevant attributes of God be explained by a testable theory. A good start would be how, in detail, does God create quarks?
Perhaps more 'likely' is a better word - in which case the burden of proof indeed lies upon believers in mythical supernatural forces that 99.9999% of the world dont even claim to have witnessed.

[whoneedscience]

But scientific assumptions can be explained. That's my point. Theists use false assumptions when they attempt to use Occam's razor to simplify everything to "God did it". They cannot provide explanations as to how.
Would explaining assumptions just require more assumptions, then? Sooner or later you'd have to reach some fundamental assumptions. I agree that scientific ones are better and can be explained better, but that doesn't seem to make any difference to theists. Even if you were to explain perfectly to a theist some hypothetical scientific proof that God doesn't exist, they would still likely operate on the assumptions that they have arrived at via blind faith. There is no reasoning with someone who cannot break such an infinite logic loop.

[whoneedscience]

I would at this point suggest we could classify humans into two types: those who seek complexity (the nomads, pioneers, migrating tribes) and those who seek simplicity (agrarian, sedentary, communal lifestyle).

Hmm.... just a thought
Or just Type A and Type B: those who seek stress and those who avoid it.

[TheSnake]

I think that an important aspect of the Occam's Razor is that a simpler explanation is more elegant. If you've got two theories, both of which are equally useful in explaining some phenomena, then the simpler one is just more convenient to use.

Using God as an explanation fails the Occam's Razor miserably. Any explanation that involves God can be reduced into a simpler, equally useful/useless explanation, by replacing all actions attributed to God, by 'it just happened for no particular reason'. This follows from Gods motives being inexplicable.

[Tenspace]

But scientific assumptions can be explained. That's my point. Theists use false assumptions when they attempt to use Occam's razor to simplify everything to "God did it". They cannot provide explanations as to how.
Would explaining assumptions just require more assumptions, then? Sooner or later you'd have to reach some fundamental assumptions.
Yes, that's true. But it's not an infinite trail of prior assumptions. Our assumption that man was created through speciation over several million years is backed by a finite naturalistic explanation. Some initial assumptions require no further explanation (the razor is sharp, for example). Others require many steps of complex explanation (like the Standard Model of Particle Physics).

I agree that scientific ones are better and can be explained better, but that doesn't seem to make any difference to theists. Even if you were to explain perfectly to a theist some hypothetical scientific proof that God doesn't exist, they would still likely operate on the assumptions that they have arrived at via blind faith. There is no reasoning with someone who cannot break such an infinite logic loop.
And that's my point, as well. Going back to the context of this thread, they fail at using Fr William's logic test because their assumption of simplicity is way off base.

[Rhinoqulous]

I would at this point suggest we could classify humans into two types: those who seek complexity (the nomads, pioneers, migrating tribes) and those who seek simplicity (agrarian, sedentary, communal lifestyle).

Hmm.... just a thought
There's nothing anti-progress with a communal lifestyle. Or is this not what you're suggesting?

[Philboid Studge]

I still don't see why a simpler explanation is preferred. I'm not denying it's so, just wondering why. Snake touched on it -- its the easier one to use. Is that all there is to it?

[Tenspace]

I would at this point suggest we could classify humans into two types: those who seek complexity (the nomads, pioneers, migrating tribes) and those who seek simplicity (agrarian, sedentary, communal lifestyle).

Hmm.... just a thought
There's nothing anti-progress with a communal lifestyle. Or is this not what you're suggesting?
By communal, I meant a stationary community. And note, I didn't say "progress" but complexity.

[Tenspace]

I still don't see why a simpler explanation is preferred. I'm not denying it's so, just wondering why. Snake touched on it -- its the easier one to use. Is that all there is to it?
Less baggage. Think Rube Goldberg.

[Philboid Studge]

The baggage would render an explanation more vulnerable to falsification or ...? So what? Of course I agree, if the baggage is useless, but you find that out before you slice it off with Ock's knife, no? I would investigate which of the explanations made more sense before I threw out those that seemed too complicated to handle. Der Razor is the last thing to happen to competing theories, or am I missing something?

[TheSnake]

If there are to theories that can be shown to be equivalent, then the simpler one is preferable, simply because it's more elegant and easier to use.
Scientists tend to implicitly do this to their theories. They refine them by getting rid of excess 'fat' that isn't needed.
Two competing theories need to be evaluated by their merits of course. Their ability to predict things correctly and their power of explanation. But the first thing to do, before comparing two theories, is to trim the fat from both of them. Just maybe they'll end up looking alike and no comparison will be necessary.

[Philboid Studge]

If there are to theories that can be shown to be equivalent, then the simpler one is preferable, simply because it's more elegant and easier to use.
As you said earlier. The utilitarian aspect makes sense, but 'elegance' sounds more poetic than an actual consideration!

[TheSnake]

As you said earlier. The utilitarian aspect makes sense, but 'elegance' sounds more poetic than an actual consideration!
Well, if you're going to work on something, would you rather have it aesthetically pleasing or hideously ugly?

[Sternwallow]

IMO the validity of the Razor of Occam is a matter of probability. Of two explanations, both of which address all of the data, the simpler one is simply more probable. Whatever the extra material is in the less simple one, it is not totally certain even if it is true so its inclusion lowers the probability of the whole. It is the probability of correctness that we use to evaluate between two equally simple and equally explanatory concepts. So, if "Life is an emergent property of certain complex chemical processes" is compared to "Life is a property of certain complex chemical processes with added 'elan vitale'" the one with the added "spark of life" doesn't just add needless complexity, it lowers the probability of its position.
Simplicity is highly correlated with removing the excess and simplicity tends to make a concept both more pragmatic and more elegant.

[Tenspace]

As you said earlier. The utilitarian aspect makes sense, but 'elegance' sounds more poetic than an actual consideration!
Well, if you're going to work on something, would you rather have it aesthetically pleasing or hideously ugly?
If beauty were determined at "conception" of a task, then Chelsea Clinton would look like Marilyn Monroe. :)

[Rhinoqulous]

If beauty were determined at "conception" of a task, then Chelsea Clinton would look like Marilyn Monroe. :)
Oh Jeebus, you're killing me, Ten.

[Tenspace]

One more note about Occam's Razor - often the simplest explanation turns out to be the most fundamental one. Take symmetry, or synchrony. These laws give a peek at the underlying beauty that scientists find so hard to vocalize.