Ockham's Razor (sharpening it)

jnhofzinzer,

1st.You know that I presented it (show)only as a lower standard of proof since absolute proofs are pretty hard to come by. I merely indicate my willingness to accept probilities in the discussion at hand.

2nd. I didn't think that you did. I was merely remarking about the complications introduced by the adding a possibly non-existant intelligence to a simple, large, old Universe when it doesn't seem to be required.

3rd. I don't remember Genie. I read about ten or twelve of the biographical sketches. I did not come to a conclusion, merely raised the possibility of other causes. "Nature vs Nuture" is discussed at some length in a book named "The Blank Slate". I forgot the authors name right now but I could look it up if it matters.

4th. Why not mark myself I have to live with myself also, and if I am dissatisfied with my performance then whose fault is that

btw, I knew that, but Mr Wonderful, and Miss America are also faintly humorous ways of denoting an individual. I also am quite aware that the "razor" has nothing whatsoever to do with beards but is rather a simile denoting perhaps "the cutting edge of an arguement. I had rather thought that you'd have picked up on that. I apologize for my obcurity

cont.

I will probably read the books that you have recommended sometime. Meanwhile I must rely on and discuss your intrepretations.

Have a good evening, M

Also by Steven Pinker (and worth reading, btw, if much poorer than "The Language Instinct"). But said book argues against the "blank slate" (i.e., the notion that an abnormal upbringing is strongly correlated with an abnormal behavior). Also worth your time is a perusal of the Amazon reviews of "The Blank Slate" -- the book does have some weaknesses, too.

jnhofzinser,

The book argues against the notion that an improper(?) upbringing is responsible for an improper(?) set of values as an adult.

But no one seems to notice (or admit publicly) that an improper (for lack of a better word) mentality in the child may have a bit to do the child being the recipient of an improper upbringing.

I realize that labeling a child for having a mentality that is subnormal in some respect could be the start down a long and slippery slope and I certainly would not wish to go there. Eugenics,and other philosophical views as to the worth of an individual are where that line of thought would probably end up

In some cases however, aided and abetted by incompetent guardians, I think that may well be what happens. In no case would I automatically ascribe "wild children" to that cause. The operative word is "automatically".

Thank you for a lovely digression, Now to the thread

Since "Ockams Razor" is used in many human fields of endeavor, albiet under different names I tend to regard it as a "revealed truth" .

To a Mechanical Engineer or designer the "Razor" is known as KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

To a theoretical physicist it is known as a "unification theory".

To an astronomer it is known as "Relativity Theory".

To an astrophysicist it is known as "elegance"

To a theist it is known as God.

To a student of evolution (and economists) it is known as "niche theory".

To a gambler it is "Probability Theory".

And to me it provides an excuse for a certain amount of "laziness" .



Or to paraphrase, The least complicated method of achieving a desired
result like making a living, making a society, or making a universe is the one most likely to be successful. It also is the one that most probably will occur first.

Evolutionally speaking, any method of hunting that is more energy intensive than required will result in your species being replaced (supplanted) eventually.

Economically speaking, any company which requires more inputs than a similar company will be replaced.

Socially speaking, any society any society which has a two percent survival advantage over another will supplant the other in a thousand years. I am thinking primarily of Neanderthals vs a precursor of Homo sapiens). Naturally I think that it may be appropriate for other human endeavors also

Sorry if I pontificate but I'm to lazy to go up and go to bed . Consequently I may learn something

Best, M

The book argues against that, too. But I think that your point is well taken, and believe that the book is flawed in this respect, exactly.

However, what you describe in no way makes the development of language easier. In fact, it makes its development more difficult. If you want to "show" that language developed by known scientific principles, you will have to do better.

Btw, the business of language acquisition and development was less of a digression than:Ah! So I wasn't far off at all when I said:
Thanks for the affirmation

No you weren't, but there is a considerable difference between economies of thoughts and actions, as exemplified by "The Razor", and complete refusal to consider some ideas.

The "Razor" can be and often is abused. This unfortunate fact has very little to do with whether of not one can use it in describing a theory.

As far as the development of language goes, I know nothing about it at all, but I tend to regard language as the most economical way to build a society. Since humans tend to appreciate the benefits of having a society to belong to it seems as though the "Razor" could be used as a description of the most economical ways to convey thoughts to one another.

Of course as a "mechanist" I prefer KISS

I'm not saying that I abide by occam's razor all the time, although it is definately a good rule and seems to apply most of the time.

The answer to the g-d question is simple, and I say this without bias of belief but as a simple sentance phrasing.

The universe exists.

The universe exists because g-d created it.

Clearly, the first sentance is simpler.

You also get caught up in lots of complexities with the implication of a creator-being, such as, who created the creator-being? You are certainly not simplifying the argument by adding a creator-being to the equation.

One of Newton's students returns from the grave and, gleefully wielding Occam's Razor, dismisses Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. His is an inappropriate use of the Razor, because his appreciation of the universe is limited and shallow. (i.e., the sentence "modern semiconductors work by quantum mechanics principles" is more complex than the sentence "modern semiconductors work", but this does not give us license to dismiss QM on the basis of Occam's Razor)

So it is with those who use the Razor to dismiss God. They do not know enough about their own universe to recognize the weakness of their argument. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination, perhaps it is deliberate. To use Pascal's brilliant phrase: "we cover our eyes before running headlong into the abyss".

Sorry jnhofzinser,

We jump from the precipice with our eyes wide open hoping to learn a little more.

To this end I have gone hang gliding, attended a strip club, and visited a naturist gathering, consumed psychologically active fungi.

The hang gliding was a personal attempt to understand the "mechanics" of flight as known to birds. (we don't have the mind for it)

The strip club was looking to see if there was any "truth" to the political theory that these are cruelly exploited women. (No exceptional truth to that theory, They are considerably less exploited than is the common working girl)

The nudist camp was an attempt to understand why the Abrahamistic religions are so preoccupied with sex and genitalia. (It's an abberration of the human psyche {modesty} utilized for selfish profits)

The mushrooms were an attempt to understand how Isaiah came up with his prophecies. ( for me it was similar to a caffine high, I didn't sleep all night and had several ideas which didn't stand the light of day-inconclusive but still very probable when understanding Isaiah) If I believed in a Messaiah and lived in a community that relied on donkeys I easily could have visualized the Messaiah riding a black jack (male) ass(donkey) through the gates of Jerusalem but my visions were a bit more prosaic

Thats dedicated research (eyes open at the brink)