Ockham's Razor

[Pyrian]

It is, in fact, the only proof you have that Santa Claus does not exist.

I can come up with any number of empirical proofs that Santa Clause does not exist based on the predictions of the theory of his existence (starting with reindeer can't fly).

If it were not, I could legitimately disprove every explanation by offering an alternate explanation that was exactly the same as the first one, but had an invisible, intangible elf.

That is a fairly accurate description of most theoretical particle physics at this stage, Yahzi - they may call the elf "super-strings" and apply various mathematics, but it's still basically an invisible elf which does stuff.

Hence we see that the Razor applies to everything except insane people.

No, no, it applies to insane people as well.

The reality is that it doesn't prove anything, Yahzi, and if it did then 150 years ago we'd've had PROOF that relativity was incorrect, since Newtonian physics did the job as far as we could tell at that point.

It is a tool for winnowing hypotheses - and a good one. But it does not offer proofs.

 

[RichardR]

Occam's Razor proves stuff just fine. It is, in fact, the only proof you have that Santa Claus does not exist.

Funny. I always thought you couldn't prove a universal negative.

Since absolutely everyone here agress that Santa Claus does not exist (and also elves, pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, compassionite conservatives, etc.), we must conclude that the Razor is in fact compelling in every single instance it is used

And that appeal to popularity was a logical fallacy.

As usual, God gets a special exemption.

Not here he doesn't.

No one objects when the Razor is used to disprove any of the infinite imaginary creatures made up by delusional lunatics and poets: only when God is subject to the Razor do people suddenly decide that it is somehow inadequate.

This special exemption says a lot about the notion of God, but nothing at all about Occam's Razor.

But the Razor doesn't disprove anything.

The problem when applying the Razor is that few people understand the Razor or even know of its existence. I think skeptics instinctively apply it when examining woo woo claims, but believers do not. That's why I think it is important in promoting critical thinking, to explain why we use it. I think we need to explain the thought processes involved rather than go on about it as though it were some kind of skeptics' law.

Everyone uses the Razor every single time they frame any argument. Everyone assumes its absolute power, utility, and correctness every time they offer any explanation of anything.

I think the arguments put forward by believers on this forum demonstrate that not everyone uses the Razor every single time they frame any argument.

 

[RichardR]

csense:

Just to be clear here, do you think I was saying that the Razor could distinguish between physical and non physical entities, or distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, or what is correct and what is incorrect?

I would like to know what you think, because if that was the message I was putting over I need to re-write my message. Thanks.

 

[csense]

csense:

Just to be clear here, do you think I was saying that the Razor could distinguish between physical and non physical entities, or distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, or what is correct and what is incorrect?

Well yes, it does seem like that is what you were inferring.

Here's what you said:


You can't prove the non-existence of God using Occam's Razor. You can use Occam's Razor to determine that there is no need to posit the existence of God to explain anything. That's an important difference.

Occam's Razor says don't invent unnecessary entities to explain something that can already be explained using only entities that are known to exist. That is not because Occam's Razor proves the unnecessary entities don't exist. It is because the additional entities are unnecessary inventions. Which means that you are only invoking them because you happen to like the idea, or because they are necessary for some belief system. The problem is, if you ignore Occam's Razor and invent entities which are not supported by evidence, there are an infinite number of entities you can invoke to explain any phenomena. For example, if I drop my pen and it falls to the ground, I can say it is because there are invisible pieces of elastic pulling it down, or I can say there are invisible fairies in the room that are doing it. And that approach leads nowhere.

There are three things that strike me here...one, I think the use of the term invent or invention is ambigious considering we are dealing with the theoretical, and it implies an assumption that those concepts which concern themselves with what we consider to be of a non physical nature, to be wrong, or at the very least to be a condradiction of logic and reason and therefore essentially useless.
Which brings me to my second point, that of necessity, which can be very subjective given that again we are dealing with the theoritcal, and whose supporting arguments, or evidence if you will, are grounded in pure reason.

My final observation is that there is a tendency to confuse observations or events that a theory is attempting to explain, and observations or events that a theory predicts.
[edited to add]
And even then, if true consequences are observed, it does not infer the truth of the theory since from the truth of the consequences, one may infer the truth of the ground, but only negatively. If one false consequence follows, then the ground must also be false, for if the ground were true, then the consequence must also be true since the consequence is determined by the ground. One can not infer conversely however since true consequences may be drawn from a false ground.

 

[Yahzi]

Occam's Razor is not a principle, and it specifically is not a principle of contradiction. As previously stated, it's use is limited to matters theoretical.

This either means nothing or it is wrong.

If by limiting it to matters of theory, you simply mean it only applies to explanations, well of course. If you mean it only applies that boring old formal stuff that scientists do, then you are dead wrong.

It is not only a principle, it is a principle that you endorse and utilize every single day. It is the fundamental basis of reason. It is what distinguishes the true explanation from all the others.

Elsewhere I have discussed the 3 assumptions of science. 1) there is a universe that is knowable to approximation, 2) it is law governed, 3) we can tell the difference between approximations. Occam's Razor is effectively number 3: to refute it, or assert it does not apply, is to assert that our theorys of the universe are indistinguishable. This is a common new age position, and it is wrong.

The explanation that rain is caused by condensation is unquestionalbly superior to the explanation that rain is caused by condensation and an invisible intangible elf. Surely you agree. So by what principle do you rule out the explanation containing the useless, undetectable elf? Why, by the principle of Occam's Razor.

 

[Yahzi]

Funny. I always thought you couldn't prove a universal negative.

All these arguments revolve around what "prove" means. If by proof you mean something so certain you'd unhesitatingly stake your life on it, then yes, we can prove things.

But if by proof you mean an impossible standard that cannot be met except for trivial cases of definition, well, then, no. Is that surprising? Is it meaningful?

 

[Leif Roar]

All these arguments revolve around what "prove" means. If by proof you mean something so certain you'd unhesitatingly stake your life on it, then yes, we can prove things.

Of course, by that definition a lot of people find the bible to be "proof good enough." It's not really a good definition, as a) it doesn't separate between what's true and what's merely useful and b) people can be frightfully irrational about what they'll stake their lives on.

(Edited to fix a typo.)

 

[Pyrian]

Yahzi:
If by proof you mean something so certain you'd unhesitatingly stake your life on it, then yes, we can prove things.

Would you unhesitatingly stake your life on the assertion that quarks are elemental? Would you have unhesitatingly staked your life on the assertion the electrons were elemental, back when there was no evidence to suggest they were made up of anything else? Would you have unhesitatingly staked your life on the assertion that matter was infinitely divisible, back before there was any evidence to the contrary?

Ockham's Razor is incredibly useful for ruling out the infinite number of other possibilities in the universe, but pretty much every time its been used its been eventually shown to be wrong. I'd hardly call that measuring up to the word "proof".

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Ockham's Razor is incredibly useful for ruling out the infinite number of other possibilities in the universe, but pretty much every time its been used its been eventually shown to be wrong. I'd hardly call that measuring up to the word "proof".

Occam's razor is applied with the given evidence, you know...

Ha, pretty much every time it's used it's been eventually shown to be wrong? Ridiculous. Tell me that next time I don't assume that it was aliens who took a bite out of my sandwich...

 

[Pyrian]

Lord Kenneth:
Occam's razor is applied with the given evidence, you know...

Of course it is - that's my point. The given evidence is never complete. There are an infinite number of wrong answers, but there's usually a right answer you'd never think of which would be ruled out by Ockham's Razor - and justifiably at that.

Thus, it does not and cannot constitute proof.

Lord Kenneth:
Ha, pretty much every time it's used it's been eventually shown to be wrong? Ridiculous. Tell me that next time I don't assume that it was aliens who took a bite out of my sandwich...

The problem isn't with the aliens assumption, the problem is with declaring that all solutions other than the simplest are necessarily incorrect and proven incorrect by the razor.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Of course it is - that's my point. The given evidence is never complete. There are an infinite number of wrong answers, but there's usually a right answer you'd never think of which would be ruled out by Ockham's Razor - and justifiably at that.

Thus, it does not and cannot constitute proof.The problem isn't with the aliens assumption, the problem is with declaring that all solutions other than the simplest are necessarily incorrect and proven incorrect by the razor.

I don't think anyone says it is proof.

It's simply the most likely solution given what we know.

 

[Pyrian]

Lord Kenneth:
I don't think anyone says it is proof.

Yahzi:
Occam's Razor proves stuff just fine.

 

[RichardR]

csense:

Thanks for your reply. I believe Occam's Razor is one of the main aspects of critical thinking that the woo woos don't get, and consequently I have been trying to explain why we use it, so that it makes sense. (Incidentally, I believe the other main thing we need to teach woo woos is the meaning of argument from ignorance, but that's a subject for another thread.) I have been finding it hard to explain why we use it, because I realize I've been applying it (without realizing what it was called), it most of my life. It seems so obvious to me (and probably most skeptics), that I'm finding it hard to explain to someone who doesn't see things the way I do. So I appreciate the feedback.

However, I am confused over a few points, and I wonder if I have got something wrong or am just explaining myself poorly. In the interest if getting to the bottom of this:

There are three things that strike me here...one, I think the use of the term invent or invention is ambigious considering we are dealing with the theoretical, and it implies an assumption that those concepts which concern themselves with what we consider to be of a non physical nature, to be wrong, or at the very least to be a condradiction of logic and reason and therefore essentially useless.

I intended the word "invention" to apply to physical and non-physical things, so you confuse me a little here.

Perhaps "invention" is too loaded a word. I want to get over the idea that the additional assumptions are not backed by any evidence and therefore they must be fabricated, or made-up (invented). Perhaps I should say the additional assumption is "not backed by evidence that it exists, and therefore there is no reason to suppose it exists".

Less emotive – but does it get the message over?

Which brings me to my second point, that of necessity, which can be very subjective given that again we are dealing with the theoritcal, and whose supporting arguments, or evidence if you will, are grounded in pure reason.

Occam's Razor says "…without necessity", so I think we need to keep it in some form. Perhaps "unless the hypothesis cannot be explained without" the additional assumption. It's less subjective but less punchy. Does it get the message over?

My final observation is that there is a tendency to confuse observations or events that a theory is attempting to explain, and observations or events that a theory predicts.

Sorry – I'm don't understand how my explanation was doing that.

 

[RichardR]

All these arguments revolve around what "prove" means. If by proof you mean something so certain you'd unhesitatingly stake your life on it, then yes, we can prove things.

But if by proof you mean an impossible standard that cannot be met except for trivial cases of definition, well, then, no. Is that surprising? Is it meaningful?

This just sounds like argument from ignorance – your opponent can't prove it true so it is false. Now, I agree that when something tested again and again and always fails the test (eg homeopathy), then it is sensible to conclude unless any new evidence appears that the thing is false. But this is a special case where we draw a conclusion because of the weight of all the failed tests. Occam's Razor can be applied in the absence of any such data, and in that case Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything.

 

[Brown]

Try applying Occam's Razor to this problem:

Start with a circle. The circle is in one piece, and remains in one piece when you put one dot anywhere on the circumference.

Now put a second dot anywhere on the circumference and connect the two dots with a straight line. You have divided the circle into two pieces. (The two pieces need not be equal in area.)

Put a third dot anywhere on the circumference and connect the dots with straight lines. You have divided the circle into four pieces.

Put a fourth dot anywhere on the circumference and connect the dots with straight lines. You have divided the circle into eight pieces.

Put a fifth dot anywhere on the circumference and connect the dots with straight lines. You have divided the circle into sixteen pieces.

So, to sum up:
one dot: one piece
two dots: two pieces
three dots: four pieces
four dots: eight pieces
five dots: sixteen pieces

What do you predict will be the number of pieces with six dots? What equation relates dots to pieces? Draw a circle yourself, put dots on it and connect the lines, then count the pieces to see whether you got the answer that you predicted.

What does this tell us about Occam's Razor (if anything)?

 

[Yahzi]

Ockham's Razor is incredibly useful for ruling out the infinite number of other possibilities in the universe, but pretty much every time its been used its been eventually shown to be wrong. I'd hardly call that measuring up to the word "proof".

This is false. Once again, I ask you: how do you know that invisible intangible elves are not an integral part of the weather cycle? Ruling out the infinite possiblities is done so frequently, and properly so, that its accuracy rate must approach infinity. Your insane notion to the contrary is just, well, insane. The razor is not some dusty sawhorse that is trotted out once a decade or so. It is a principle you are using right this very instant. It is fundamental to the process of reason.

Your claim that it doesn't prove anything is tantamount to saying that reason and logic do not prove anything. Perhaps you are just trying to say that they are not "evidence," and given the wrong evidence will produce the wrong result. Agreed. But that's a far cry from your claim that we cannot use Occam's Razor to exclude the existance of an infinite number of non-essential, non-dectable entities.

 

[Yahzi]

This just sounds like argument from ignorance – your opponent can't prove it true so it is false.

That's not the argument from ignorance - that is the default position of reason! If you can't prove it true, then it is, by default, false. Yes. This is called "reason."

In case you missed it, there are an infinite - wait let me make that clearer - INFINITE number of propositions that cannot be proved false. You reject virtually all of them without hesitation. By what principal do you do this? Occam's Razor.

Without the Razor, you would be compelled to put invisible intangible elves on the same status as O.J. Simpson's guilt. Do you do this? Do you even think it would be desirable to do this?

As for applying things with insufficient data, well yes. This is the difference between a valid argument and a sound one. So what? The fact that you can use logic to reach false conclusions if you start from false or inadequate premises does not lead you to make statements like "you can't prove anything with logic."

 

[Yahzi]

Try applying Occam's Razor to this problem:

Try applying the syllogism to this problem:

A man has 3 apples. If throws one at a woowoo, how many does he have left?

If you fail to solve this problem using the syllogism, does that mean you can't prove anything with the syllogism?

If you can't change your car tire with a tuning fork, does that mean the tuning fork doesn't work?

 

[Yahzi]

Of course it is - that's my point. The given evidence is never complete. There are an infinite number of wrong answers, but there's usually a right answer you'd never think of which would be ruled out by Ockham's Razor - and justifiably at that.

This is so deeply confused.

On the one hand it seems to be a statement of nilhism - that nothing can actually be known, since the evidence can never be complete.

On the other hand it just seems like an incorrect application of the principle. Apparently rulling out any number of invisible intangible elves as possible explanations also rules out the right answer, which gives the impression that the right answer is some number of elves. After all, there are an infinite number elf theorys (1 elf, 2 elves, etc.) and only one non-elf theory, so by simple averaging we should assume that there are some number of elves involved, right?

Logic gives you the wrong answer if you apply it wrong, or start with the wrong premises. But you would hardly condemn or abandon logic for that reason, nor would you make the claim that "logic doesn't prove anything."

 

[LW]

That's not the argument from ignorance - that is the default position of reason! If you can't prove it true, then it is, by default, false. Yes. This is called "reason."

However, you should note that this principle doesn't hold in formal logic.