|
Post by pieisgood on Jan 9, 2005 12:03:21 GMT -5
As this thread is largely conveyed in the "invisble pink unicorn" type stories, I'm adressing this mostly to theists.
Occam's razor is a logical principle that says "If two equally supported hypothesises come up, the simpler one is usually right."
For example, I could or could not have an invisible, intangible water faerie dancing on my shoulder right now. All my experiences support both hypothesises equally. However, the reasonable thing for me to asssume is that there are NO water faeries.
Imagine that there is equal evidence supporting Theism and atheism. The logical position there is not to be agnostic. The correct position is atheism.
This has been a recurring argument, so argue it here.
-pie
|
|
ToxicMoon
Seasoned Citizen
Delusional One
Posts: 129
|
Post by ToxicMoon on Jan 9, 2005 23:13:44 GMT -5
If there is equal evidence to support theism and atheism, then why is being agnostic not a logical position to take until there is more evidence to support one or the other?
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jan 9, 2005 23:22:55 GMT -5
Do you believe that there is an invisible, intangible leprechaun sitting next to you right now? Do you disbelieve it?
|
|
Anarchat
Seasoned Citizen
School's design is two-fold: to polish the exceptionally dull and to dull the exceptionally bright.
Posts: 107
|
Post by Anarchat on Jan 10, 2005 16:40:29 GMT -5
If there is equal evidence to support theism and atheism, then why is being agnostic not a logical position to take until there is more evidence to support one or the other? Ockham's Razor has nothing to say about propositions with the same number of assumptions.
|
|
ToxicMoon
Seasoned Citizen
Delusional One
Posts: 129
|
Post by ToxicMoon on Jan 11, 2005 14:48:06 GMT -5
Ockham's Razor has nothing to say about propositions with the same number of assumptions. So in order to participate in this debate, you have to go to one side or the other, even if the arguments have equal evidence?
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jan 11, 2005 22:48:29 GMT -5
No. the argument that I'm making is that, if presented with equal evidence to two cases, the simpler one (the one which does not make a positive claim) is said to be true until proven otherwise
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Jan 11, 2005 22:54:37 GMT -5
No. the argument that I'm making is that, if presented with equal evidence to two cases, the simpler one (the one which does not make a positive claim) is said to be true until proven otherwise
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Jan 12, 2005 14:00:54 GMT -5
No. the argument that I'm making is that, if presented with equal evidence to two cases, the simpler one (the one which does not make a positive claim) is said to be true until proven otherwise ...is the "preferred" hypothesis... The problem I have with the use of Occam's Razor is that it is simply a philosophy of selecting the most likely hypothesis. It is often re-worded to imply that it is a scientific principle. The downfall is how each hypothesis is presented. Very often ideas with unknown variables get simplified (with constant K for example) and appear on the surface to be the simpler, more elegant solution. Using it in a debate where supernatural forces may be invoked, is not very useful. Other than that, I think it does apply well in many situations.
|
|
ToxicMoon
Seasoned Citizen
Delusional One
Posts: 129
|
Post by ToxicMoon on Jan 12, 2005 15:31:49 GMT -5
Now I understand. I just reread the first post, and finally noticed that little line explaining Occam's Razor. I feel dumb. Yes, I think atheism would be the correct choice unless more evidence came about.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Jan 12, 2005 18:19:18 GMT -5
For example, I could or could not have an invisible, intangible water faerie dancing on my shoulder right now. All my experiences support both hypothesises equally. However, the reasonable thing for me to asssume is that there are NO water faeries. Excuse my nitpickiness, but I do want to help you hone your argument. The example you give is simply one hypothesis (and it's associated null-hypothesis). Occam's is about selecting the most likely explanation among several for a phenomina or occurance. It is not simply picking the null-hypothesis because it is not making a positive claim (and is therefore simpler). For example, try two ideas for why seashell fossils are in the mountains. One explanation is the Great Flood of the Bible (requiring an all powerful, yet currently elusive God) the other, naturally occuring geologic forces (and a very long period of time). But, as I mentioned before, using Occam's in a debate where supernatural forces may be invoked, is not very useful. Other than that, I think it does apply well in many situations.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Jan 12, 2005 18:22:32 GMT -5
I feel dumb. Please don't. If you are dumb then I am an imbosil.
|
|
cantbeatbass
Maverick's Chew Toy
Friedrich von Schiller said it best
Posts: 8
|
Post by cantbeatbass on Jun 20, 2006 0:20:02 GMT -5
As I understand Ockham's Razor, it is a way of choosing among possible truths where the simplest truth is selected. I believe the original meaning of 'simplest' truth is the one with the fewest assumptions, which I presume does not include logical steps like iff A is B and B is C then A must be C. -source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razorIn accordance with this interpretation, the weighing of the two possible truths (theism and atheism) would be listing all assumptions made by each possible truth and picking the one with the least. Then the debate becomes what constitutes logical steps and what are assumptions. This would be my list: Theistic Assumptions- 1)God exists- 2)God is omnipotent-therefore god could create the physical world 3)God actually did create the universe-therefore existence is validated. I don't think this is necessarily a derivation of the above assumption; just because god can create the universe doesn't mean he does 4)God wants to be believed in-It is possible that a god could exist that did not want to be believed in Atheistic Assumptions- 1)God does not exist-therefore god is not omnipotent and did not create the universe or at least if god is and did, god doesn't want us to believe so 2)The math explaining the universe can be reduced down to one variable-therefore existence is validated According to this argument, Ockham's Razor would lead to Atheism as the logical choice. Q.E.D. or something. Tell what you guys think.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Dec 28, 2006 23:48:32 GMT -5
Occam's Razor is a philosophical assumption, and is clearly not to be relied upon as strongly as other intuitive notions such as the Principle of Causality or the Law of Noncontradiction. It may be useful and often correct, but I don't think it proves anything.
If one wishes to argue for atheism or theism, he should rely on principles that we pretty much know are always true.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jan 12, 2007 10:44:14 GMT -5
Or dan he should stay in the middle as an agnostic. (sorry not done fighting for my cause) To quote Socrotese "It is a wiser man who dose not say that which he dose not know." Without the proof to point to a certain side compleatly it is nessisary to stay in the middle and not assume to know the answer.
PS. Cantbeatbass, Please never use wikipedia as a sourse it is not a valid tool.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jan 12, 2007 16:50:05 GMT -5
Or dan he should stay in the middle as an agnostic. (sorry not done fighting for my cause) To quote Socrotese "It is a wiser man who dose not say that which he dose not know." Without the proof to point to a certain side compleatly it is nessisary to stay in the middle and not assume to know the answer. Yeah, that's reasonable as a general principle, but you're assuming it applies in this particular case. In order for it to work, the evidence for God's existence must be no stronger or weaker (that is, exactly equal to) than the arguments against his existence.
|
|