Occam's Razor

They (scientists) should quit enforcing it so much. It is not a rule or law made in stone.

Well, I don't think that the problem is that it is over-applied, but that it is mis-applied...A LOT.

The principle that entities must not be unnecessarily multiplied, which as the principle of economy of hypothesis, is applicable to scientific research. (from William of Occam, d.1349?, English philosopher).

unnecesarily.. hahaha

That says it all...

No, you are misreading.

The principle states that if the hypothesis can be formed to a natural phenomena with 2 variables, and then it could be formed with 42 variables, the correct scientific method is to first formulate the 2 variable hypothesis, apply the scientific method to the validation of said hypothesis, accept the 2 variable hypothesis as theory if it is proven such, OR move on to the higher-numbered hypotheses (moving from smallest number of variables to higher) in order to establish WHICH hypothesis either can be kept as being most repeatable and accurate.

And I BELIEVE that that is all one sentence...and not a run-on..but I might be mistaken.

A very satisfactory explanation, with no redundant verbage or hypotheses.

By the way, why did you pick "42" hypotheses?

I have a few hypotheses on that.

I don't know. I always pick 42 when I'm picking a random bogous number...it can be 42, or 42 million...usually one of the two. But anyway, it always comes out 42.

And I HAVE noticed that for a long time.

I wonder how Occam's RaZor would apply to chaos theory...

It seems like they would contradict each other...

Okay, if you use the phrase "Occam's Razor" in the same sentence as "Chaos Theory" you are now stepping into the area that I was speaking of in my first post

"it is not that it is overapplied, but misapplied". Chaos theory is more mathematic and statistics. It is a statement that something that looks random, if analyzed enough, will convey a pattern (fractal - naturally occurring pattern in apparently random process/system).

So, in other words, it is stating that eventually SOME pattern can be detected even in PI if you can just analyze it the "right" way, and for a sufficient amount time.

Originally posted by Valhall
So, in other words, it is stating that eventually SOME pattern can be detected even in PI if you can just analyze it the "right" way, and for a sufficient amount time.

That's so true... Maybe I see it so because of the image that Occam's RaZor principle gives me.

Wait a second, so Occam's Razor says that if you have a hypothesis that includes 2 variables and one with 3 variables...to clarify an example would be a hypothesis where you have two unknowns and one with three, that you must solve for?

Then by the general functionality of the universe this should make complete sense, as if something CAN be in a more orderly state, it will be.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]

And just as you were feeling nice and ordered, someone comes along and mentions 'entropy'.

I **THINK** I understand what you asked me.

YES, if you follows Occam's Razor, then the universe would end up being described in the most LOGICAL and simplistic fashion achievable.

(MaskedAvatar...I LOVE entropy...it's the ultimate band-aid to BAD theories ).

MaskedAvatar I know about Entropy, which is why I brought up "Most orderly."

Because for you to have "more options" it would require more energy.

Chaos is expensive.

So I was just being for Occam's Razor due to the fact that less variables means more abundance of that form.

Like isotopes...there are several types imaginable but some are usually by FAR more abundant. And thus the only thing worth considering when looking at the "big picture".

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]

And expansive.

Which is rather circular, getting back to the razor sharp edge of the topic.

I will say this, IF William of Occam today say how his principle was being applied by science, he would literally have a heart attack!!!! Bet on it.

The principle behind Occam's Razor is that we should interpret data and observations in a predetermined way, and not necessarily by scientific method, and in a way that fits in with a reductionist materialistic model of reality. Therefore, any data or observations that may need a complex and revisionistset of theories to explain must be either fraudulent or mistaken or, in the case of science, ridiculed and scoffed at!

Personally, it can clearly be seen that Occam's Razor is a technique, or in the case of science....a tool, that should not be employed in scientific inquiry. The reasons this is that we have discovered during scientific endeavors of the last century that the world and natural phenomena are actually quite very complex. All around us there are more complex interactions of energies, atomic and sub-atomic particles which require a very complicated model to explain.

If we had applied or used Occam's Razor with the results of Young's Two Split experiment, we would not have a modern physics as we know today. We would have never had moved on from a basic Newtonian model of Nature; we would be ignorant of phenomena that now provide the very bedrock for theories today.

To me, the observation is simply this: complex phenomena requires a complex explanation, and Occam's Razor , which appears to be more a symptom of psychology or cognitive dissonance, an aversion to ideas, rather than a technique used to interpret data, insists that we interpret all data in a simplisticway, which is obviously not good science.

Eventually, of coarse, the truth will come to light, and the weight of repeatable, testable evidences crushes any dissenting voices, but the costs to us in wasted time and resources, not to mention the tarnished reputations of honest, diligent researchers, is too great.

"Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistant with the laws of Nature." --- M. Faraday

I could go on but blah, blah.... I agree though...

regards
seekerof

my chem teacher always said "occums razor always cuts platos beard" i dont really know what it means but he just said it when he didnt feel like answering someones question that was too complex. And entropy means randomness and enthropy means heat. Yay i remembered somthing from chem, it was only endede a month ago tho

I believe I posted in another thread about how the scientific method has been abondoned....

need I say more?

I can't help it: (Scenario: Well, by golly, my hypothesis - which I prefer you call a theory - is more complex - to hell with Occam's Razor!)

Valhall

It was weeman's "enthropy" that got you, wasn't it?

I am all for the scientific method. If more people (even at ATS) understood it, then the conclusions drawn at the end of many posts would be more reliable and less prone to being criticized as a load of opinionated hogwash.

I think you are referring to enthalpy MA, correct?

and no, it is ENTROPY that I love...above dark matter, and quarks and anything else...

it is the ULTIMATE band-aid.