3
   

Man Under Materialism

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 05:33 am
@rosborne979,
Billy Ockham, a Franciscan, aka the "More than Subtle Doctor", believed in God.

The Razor is also known as the Principle of Parsimony. And it only dictates a bias towards simplicity in theory construction. Not a certainty. The same idea is in Aristotle. And is actually banal as any investigating detective will inform you.

He was excommunicated by Pope John XXII for his defiant defence of Franciscan poverty. One wonders if ros defends such poverty.

No education is pretty bad but half an education is worse.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 06:51 am
@spendius,
Quote:

And you see nothing profoundly silly in that sentence fm?
Ive been away few days with no wifi, so, I must say that my post was directed DIRECTLY at a post by gunga. He brought up the subjcts so as to whether it is "off topic" is really for him to decide not you.

As far as you mining and editing my post, my response , in toto,(I noticed how you removed the evidentiary phrases) carefully included the statement that , when those who were quoted by the "Institute for SCientific Creationism" were followed up with , NONE of them were even aware that they were quote mined as badly as they were.

They all repudiated the ICR folks for fraudulently doctoring and
editing statements for publication to make it appear that these
scientists were somehow "in doubt" of their own positions.

It was basically a demo of the phoniness that underpins the ICR and similar ersatz "Science in religion" organizations.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 12:35 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I do not even agree that the latter is "simpler" nor any "less involved" than the former.

In fact, one of the problems I have with the used of Occum's Razor is that an objective decision about which of alternatives is less complex has to be made...and, as you did here, the decision is often self-serving toward the bias of the person making the decision.

I shouldn't have used the word "simple" in my definition. The Razor is more succinctly effective as "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.". Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" is probably closer to the original.

The point being that it's not "simplicity" which is being evaluated by the Razor, it's the number of assumptions or "entities".

Also, the example of a desk being solid or empty space doesn't apply because the Razor is only used to break a tie between two theories which propose exactly the same result, not two completely different results. Theories which propose different results are verifiable by tests other than the Razor.


Bottom line, Ros...is that Occum's Razor does not decide which of competing possibilities IS the correct answer.

I'm not really going to go further into this...Occum's Razor has been shown to be not especially valuable by much more learned individuals than I.

If you like it...use it. If you use it on me...I will simply indicate that I don't see it being valuable to decide what we are arguing.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 01:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Bottom line, Ros...is that Occum's Razor does not decide which of competing possibilities IS the correct answer.

Of course not, it's a probability test, not a possibility test.
Frank Apisa wrote:
I'm not really going to go further into this...Occum's Razor has been shown to be not especially valuable by much more learned individuals than I.

That's complete bullshit, but if you've convinced yourself already that's fine. I don't want to make you think about something if you're not interested in thinking about it.
Frank Apisa wrote:
If you like it...use it. If you use it on me...I will simply indicate that I don't see it being valuable to decide what we are arguing.

I wouldn't expect anything else from you Frank Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 02:29 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Bottom line, Ros...is that Occum's Razor does not decide which of competing possibilities IS the correct answer.

Of course not, it's a probability test, not a possibility test.



Right. So tell me...what is the probability that a GOD exists...versus the probability that there are no gods? Using Occum's Razor, of course.



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 02:53 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
That's complete bullshit, but if you've convinced yourself already that's fine. I don't want to make you think about something if you're not interested in thinking about it.


That is certainly bullshit if it purports to be a response to the proposition it was responding to.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 03:21 pm
@farmerman,
I was referring to the idiocy of criticising "negative phrases" in a sentence that contains "Cretinists". It seems patently ridiculous to me. If I didn't know you so well I might have thought it was irony.

Here is the sentence I commented on--

Quote:
That's because the very quotes that the Cretinists take from scientists are usually doctored, or are merely argument introductory phrases where a topic is introduced as a negative phrase.


"Cretinists" is a negative phrase and involves the doctoring of "Creationists". I was merely showing your inability to construct a sensible sentence so that viewers might take note to help them with your other sentences. Had you not doctored Creationists, and in a manner which thought upper case suitable for cretinist, a gross solecism inside an even grosser one, I would have agreed with you because what you accused them of doing is exactly what I would expect them to do. It would be remiss of them not to do.

I certainly mined that first paragraph but I didn't edit it.

I will quote you if I think fit whoever you DIRECT a post at.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 06:01 pm
@spendius,
Definitely NOT a solecism (nor a solipsism), you've seen me use the term as standard English for many years. I cadged it from a local Harrisburg Pa columnist who was quite enraged at the stupidity presented by the IDers and he merely called them by a new term that was constructed from the original title ,when Creationists suddenly morphed into the modern Intelligent Designers,(Who owed much , much more to the work of Phillip Johnston than to Richard Paley . Im

not surprised that you missed the references,but Ive grown accustomed to your obtuse side.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 06:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Right. So tell me...what is the probability that a GOD exists...versus the probability that there are no gods? Using Occum's Razor, of course.

Those two choices aren't hypotheses which make predictions so the Razor doesn't technically apply.

For the Razor to apply you would have to rephrase the question as "is it more likely that a God was necessary to create the Universe or that no God was necessary to create the Universe?"

And in that case, between two competing hypothesis with identical predictions the Razor says that the one with the fewest entities or assumptions is the better one. So by the Razor, the one with no Gods is more likely. The Razor doesn't tell us how much more likely or if the answer is correct, it only breaks the tie by virtue of the Razor.

As a more extreme example, if another hypothesis were introduced in which One God had to be created by another God which had to be created by another God until it was Ten Gods deep, then the hypothesis with the fewest entities is the best one. So the Razor would select One God over Ten Gods just as it selects Zero Gods over One God.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Sep, 2013 03:47 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Those two choices aren't hypotheses which make predictions so the Razor doesn't technically apply.

For the Razor to apply you would have to rephrase the question as "is it more likely that a God was necessary to create the Universe or that no God was necessary to create the Universe?"


To propose the “question” as you do would require that I make the assumption that the universe was “created”…something I am unwilling to do.

And even if I were to determine that it is absolutely UNNECESSARY for a GOD to exist in order for the universe to exist…I would know nothing. The fact that it is unnecessary does not impact on whether or not it IS. (A reason that Occum’s Razor is almost useless as a philosophical tool.)


Quote:
And in that case, between two competing hypothesis with identical predictions the Razor says that the one with the fewest entities or assumptions is the better one. So by the Razor, the one with no Gods is more likely. The Razor doesn't tell us how much more likely or if the answer is correct, it only breaks the tie by virtue of the Razor.


And it may be dead wrong. So why bother?


Quote:
As a more extreme example, if another hypothesis were introduced in which One God had to be created by another God which had to be created by another God until it was Ten Gods deep, then the hypothesis with the fewest entities is the best one. So the Razor would select One God over Ten Gods just as it selects Zero Gods over One God.


Not interested in this.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Sep, 2013 06:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Ockham's Razor ( lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

It is a variation on the Gordian knot solution aka the Alexandrian solution.

"Turn him to any cause of policy,
The Gordian Knot of it he will unloose,
Familiar as his garter" (Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1 Scene 1. 45–47)
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Sep, 2013 10:06 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Not interested in this.

Me either. By the way you have a nice back yard. Although I'm not certain because I've never really seen it. And even if I did see it I guess I couldn't be absolutely certain because if there is a God it could have just made me think I saw a back yard which really wasn't there. The simplest solution of course is that you really do have a nice back yard, but I guess I can't rely on that because simple solutions aren't guaranteed to be correct or philosophically valid. So please allow me to obtusely imply that you might possibly have the potential for a nice back yard while still fervently assuring you that I'm fully aware that I don't know anything for certain.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Sep, 2013 10:48 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Not interested in this.

Me either. By the way you have a nice back yard. Although I'm not certain because I've never really seen it. And even if I did see it I guess I couldn't be absolutely certain because if there is a God it could have just made me think I saw a back yard which really wasn't there. The simplest solution of course is that you really do have a nice back yard, but I guess I can't rely on that because simple solutions aren't guaranteed to be correct or philosophically valid. So please allow me to obtusely imply that you might possibly have the potential for a nice back yard while still fervently assuring you that I'm fully aware that I don't know anything for certain.


Whatever floats your boat, Ros.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 09:52:12