Welcome and enjoy the site.
I used to use Occam's Razor but my wife got me a Norelco for Christmas.
Introduction/Occam's Razor, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 09:08 AM by MordosKull
reply to post by beezzer
Lol, that's funny, I like a good portion of the humor I see on the site. Thanks for the chuckle.
Lol, that's funny, I like a good portion of the humor I see on the site. Thanks for the chuckle.
reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 09:54 AM by Aliensun
reply to post by MordosKull
If your argument is really about the validity of Occam's Ranzor and not trying to disprove God, well, you have chosen an unanswerable and decidedly biased position to pose your argument. Let us shift that argument to another aspect that is more on target.
Carl Sagan was keen on using the Occam's Razor argument to deny UFOs. That was and is a spurious argument to deny something that shows validity in thousands of data records, but he did it anyway because it was the only tool in his scientific backpack that he could pull forth. And if one trusted the sacred halls of ivy as always being exactly correct and precise in their guesstiments then, you had no choice but to shrug and say, "I suppose they are right. can Carl Sagan, the social gadfly scientist on Johnny Carson be WRONG?"
My real counter argument to yours is that Occam's Razor is built around natural science and what is know at any particular time. If for example, if no scientist ever saw a bird, an insect, or an aircraft fly, there is no way they would believe that such a phenomeana such as "flying" was possible. They would have no grounds for suspecting as much because nature, gravity, as they understood it, simply would not allow it, and that was exactly why such activities were never seen, Their "proof" of that application of Occam's Razor was right there in front of everyone's eyes and hardly could be argued against.
The key fallacy of Occam's Razor that it literally believes it own stuff. In other words, in what it knows only. If scientists don't know that X is possible then of course it is not possible and they'll come up with another solution. With UFOs, that solution was and continues to be denial and any other explanation they can imagine. To suggest other live forms out there coming here in marvelous ships was idiotic and so much more complicated explanation than saying, "No."
So here's the point, UFOs are beyond the pale of the natural operations of everyday Nature as we accept it. But the good news if you haven't noticed, is that Science is bring us around to realizing that eventually we might want accept UFOs as being exactly what they appear to be. But first they must convince themselves of the absolute truth of that.
I am not a believer in the concept of God. I do believe that the Universe is--for the want of a better word--sentient. Deep meditation tells me that. Such a determination, once it reaches enough traction in the general population and scientific circles, will probably result in the rebirth of the God concept as simply a reference to the living Universe. 'Course, that won't be too far off of what most religions believe at their core, is it?
If your argument is really about the validity of Occam's Ranzor and not trying to disprove God, well, you have chosen an unanswerable and decidedly biased position to pose your argument. Let us shift that argument to another aspect that is more on target.
Carl Sagan was keen on using the Occam's Razor argument to deny UFOs. That was and is a spurious argument to deny something that shows validity in thousands of data records, but he did it anyway because it was the only tool in his scientific backpack that he could pull forth. And if one trusted the sacred halls of ivy as always being exactly correct and precise in their guesstiments then, you had no choice but to shrug and say, "I suppose they are right. can Carl Sagan, the social gadfly scientist on Johnny Carson be WRONG?"
My real counter argument to yours is that Occam's Razor is built around natural science and what is know at any particular time. If for example, if no scientist ever saw a bird, an insect, or an aircraft fly, there is no way they would believe that such a phenomeana such as "flying" was possible. They would have no grounds for suspecting as much because nature, gravity, as they understood it, simply would not allow it, and that was exactly why such activities were never seen, Their "proof" of that application of Occam's Razor was right there in front of everyone's eyes and hardly could be argued against.
The key fallacy of Occam's Razor that it literally believes it own stuff. In other words, in what it knows only. If scientists don't know that X is possible then of course it is not possible and they'll come up with another solution. With UFOs, that solution was and continues to be denial and any other explanation they can imagine. To suggest other live forms out there coming here in marvelous ships was idiotic and so much more complicated explanation than saying, "No."
So here's the point, UFOs are beyond the pale of the natural operations of everyday Nature as we accept it. But the good news if you haven't noticed, is that Science is bring us around to realizing that eventually we might want accept UFOs as being exactly what they appear to be. But first they must convince themselves of the absolute truth of that.
I am not a believer in the concept of God. I do believe that the Universe is--for the want of a better word--sentient. Deep meditation tells me that. Such a determination, once it reaches enough traction in the general population and scientific circles, will probably result in the rebirth of the God concept as simply a reference to the living Universe. 'Course, that won't be too far off of what most religions believe at their core, is it?
reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 11:04 AM by MordosKull
reply to post by Aliensun
I think I see where you're coming from... granted, my request for personal opinions was based on hypotheticals... I do think I understand. You're saying Occam's Razor is based on things that we know or things that are very probable.
Using a death scenario... someone is found dead in their apartment with a gun in their hand, wound to the head, no signs of breaking and entry, and all entrances are locked. You could determine that either it was a suicide or that someone broke in, killed the person, staged it as a suicide and got out while locking the entry/exit way on their way out... naturally you'd suspect the suicide as it's more logical and easier to explain.
I guess I should have read up on the origin and details of Occam's Razor a little more, but I presumed that the users of ATS (no offense intended) would be able to understand the reference and post opinions as that's more what I was looking for.
So considering I started my thread with faulty logic and hopefully having cleared that up, I would like to know what is your opinion on what would be the "easiest answer" as that's really more what I'm looking for.
I do want to tell you thank you for expanding my understanding of Occam's Razor, and I will certainly be looking more into it. I hope I haven't offended you as that is certainly not my intent; I'm here to be a bit more enlightened and expand my mind like most others on this site. Thanks for your reply.
I think I see where you're coming from... granted, my request for personal opinions was based on hypotheticals... I do think I understand. You're saying Occam's Razor is based on things that we know or things that are very probable.
Using a death scenario... someone is found dead in their apartment with a gun in their hand, wound to the head, no signs of breaking and entry, and all entrances are locked. You could determine that either it was a suicide or that someone broke in, killed the person, staged it as a suicide and got out while locking the entry/exit way on their way out... naturally you'd suspect the suicide as it's more logical and easier to explain.
I guess I should have read up on the origin and details of Occam's Razor a little more, but I presumed that the users of ATS (no offense intended) would be able to understand the reference and post opinions as that's more what I was looking for.
So considering I started my thread with faulty logic and hopefully having cleared that up, I would like to know what is your opinion on what would be the "easiest answer" as that's really more what I'm looking for.
I do want to tell you thank you for expanding my understanding of Occam's Razor, and I will certainly be looking more into it. I hope I haven't offended you as that is certainly not my intent; I'm here to be a bit more enlightened and expand my mind like most others on this site. Thanks for your reply.
reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 11:21 AM by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MordosKull
Given Occam's Razor is the theory that the simplest answer is most often the correct one
Your description of Occam’s Razor is actually incorrect, it is a common inaccuracy to describe it as simply stating the “simplest answer is the right one” rather Occam’s Razor states that it is the answer with the least assumptions that is usually the right one. It is a principle I use quite a lot on ATS along with a few others as it can be used quickly to help debunk a theory, for that reason most people on ATS see the words Occam’s Razor and scream DISINFO AGENT as loud as they can.
reply posted on 5-1-2012 @ 11:51 AM by MordosKull
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Ohhh... so essentially I have gone and "
" on this question by simply putting the words "Occam's Razor" in my intro. How sad... Oh well,
perhaps I can create another thread with this same topic, but not immediately discredit the whole thing with 2 words next time. Thanks for the
info!
Ohhh... so essentially I have gone and "
" on this question by simply putting the words "Occam's Razor" in my intro. How sad... Oh well,
perhaps I can create another thread with this same topic, but not immediately discredit the whole thing with 2 words next time. Thanks for the
info!Pages: ^^TOP^^
ATS members talk the talk but forget to walk the walk?! Introduction to ignite the human reactor.
Posted 15 days ago with 18 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 18 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Too new to post, will somebody please share this news story with ATS?
Other Current Events: 7 minutes ago
Other Current Events: 7 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Great Pyramid Starmap Etching Depicts Age of 9200 B.C.E (prove them wrong....)
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 12 hours ago, 26 flags
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 12 hours ago, 26 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Secular Researchers' Findings that UFO Activity is Not Extraterrestrial in Origin
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 120 replies
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 120 replies
Great Pyramid Starmap Etching Depicts Age of 9200 B.C.E (prove them wrong....)
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 12 hours ago, 53 replies
Ancient & Lost Civilizations: 12 hours ago, 53 replies
My personal Vetting Of Barack Obama: I am now a birther
General Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 46 replies
General Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 46 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.100 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.100 seconds
