Occam's razor

[ZenRaiden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

What are your thoughts on this.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

It generally bodes well with my work.

 

[Hadoblado]

Absolutely essential, but essentially non-absolute.

Don't leave home without it.

 

[redbaron]

An excuse for people to be unimaginative and uncreative.

 

[TimeAsylums]

it's why grad students don't shave

 

[Hadoblado]

An excuse for people to be unimaginative and uncreative.

It can be.

 

[Brontosaurie]

cognitive economy is vastly underrated

occam's razor is as relevant as ever

 

[Duxwing]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

What are your thoughts on this.

An essential cognitive tool for any thinker.

@redbaron Occam's Razor chooses among the previously imagined and created hypotheses.

-Duxwing

 

[Foxman49]

Prefer Einstein's razor

 

[Jennywocky]

Prefer Einstein's razor

He could have definitely used a pair of hair shears.

 

[Hadoblado]

Honestly, I don't think there's a difference.

Einstein's razor tells us to simplify things as much as possible, but not simpler.

Occam's razor tells us to take the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions, but an oversimplification results in contradiction, which requires an immense number of assumptions in order to conform to reality (you need to rethink all of logic).

Thus, the only difference between the two (the caveat about oversimplification) is redundant, and should be removed according to the very principles of which we speak.

That, and Einstein is already celebrated enough. It's not even a direct quote, it's just vaguely attributed to him. Throw this William bloke a bone.

 

[Montresor]

Hado scores the two point conversion with 3 seconds on the atomic clock.

 

[Foxman49]

Honestly, I don't think there's a difference.

Einstein's razor tells us to simplify things as much as possible, but not simpler.

Occam's razor tells us to take the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions, but an oversimplification results in contradiction, which requires an immense number of assumptions in order to conform to reality (you need to rethink all of logic).

Thus, the only difference between the two (the caveat about oversimplification) is redundant, and should be removed according to the very principles of which we speak.

That, and Einstein is already celebrated enough. It's not even a direct quote, it's just vaguely attributed to him. Throw this William bloke a bone.

Occam's razor should be functionally the same when used properly. I just prefer Einstein's razor more for two reasons. In my experience, oversimplification are as dangerous (and common) as overly complicated explanations. The other is that Einstein razor has two instructions in one quote. More bang for your buck (or razor in this case).

And since we're talking about razors, how 'bout that Hanlon's razor.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Occam's Razor = Essential for Ne users to comprehend reality in any sort of reasonable way.. otherwise the possibilities are endless >.>

 

[TimeAsylums]

Occam's Razor = Essential for Ne users to comprehend reality in any sort of reasonable way.. otherwise the possibilities are endless >.>

Foolish nonsensory. It's a constant rolling trove of possibilities all at once, not sequential.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Foolish nonsensory. It's a constant rolling trove of possibilities all at once, not sequential.

.. perhaps you are speaking in terms of the uncertainty principle?

I think that someday we'll find that this principle is simply a misunderstanding about the existence of a thing. The standard model seems too rough an approximation for clarity. What is a down quark? What is the property of charm or color? What precisely is the collapse of a wave equation - is there even such a state of things as a soup of probability?

The universe operates in a deterministic manner, I venture to say cause and effect reign supreme even on the smallest levels. But.. er *has derailed thread*

Tying this back to Occam's razor - there are a lot of theories in quantum physics that violate just the premise put forth by it. The assertions of the uncertainty principle and premises of field theory result from the incomplete observation of phenomena and extrapolation of potential truths from the lack of information.

 

[TimeAsylums]

.. perhaps you are speaking in terms of the uncertainty principle?

No, I was just speaking from the Ne-dom point of view(myself) on the usefulness Occam's razor on Ne... lol. But thanks for the uncertainty principle lecture.

In other words, she is wasting her time on you.

Precisely.

 

[Montresor]

No, I was just speaking from the Ne-dom point of view(myself) on the usefulness Occam's razor on Ne... lol.

In other words, she is wasting her time on you.


Aw c'mon. Jk

 

[Hadoblado]

Foolish nonsensory. It's a constant rolling trove of possibilities all at once, not sequential.

Rejection of the rule that presupposed the falsity of the rule.

I'll counter by presupposing its veracity and dismissing your rejection based on it being too complex.

 

[TimeAsylums]

too complex

Rejection on the basis that you made an ASSumption.

Spoiler

Foolish nonsensory. It's a constant rolling trove of possibilities all at once, not sequential.

No, I was just speaking from the Ne-dom point of view(myself) on the usefulness Occam's razor on Ne... lol. But thanks for the uncertainty principle lecture.

your rejection based on it being too complex.

...Cntrl F(ind) "too complex" hmm...only one mention of too complex...and it wasn't by me...nice assumption. possibilities all at once vs not sequential = too complex? No...so...assuming....

What is it with you people, very logical, but prone to assumptions.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's almost as if you take the words I say, remove the context, then tear them apart.

Oh wait that's precisely what you did. My cliche response is unfashionably accurate, it makes me uncomfortable.

I reject YOUR view based on YOUR view being too complex. Did you just ignore my words and ASSUME intent? See how you've ASSUMED it's me doing all the ASSUMING?

 

[TimeAsylums]

YOUR view being too complex.

Well if you find that my views are too complex, I guess I can just ignore any of your critiques on the basis that you can't comprehend them...

Spoiler

jk...not that pompous

Spoiler

jk about jk

Spoiler

or am i...

Spoiler

ha you clicked again

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

What exactly are you guys arguing about?

 

[TimeAsylums]

What exactly are you guys arguing about?

I said the thing about Occam's razor and Ne wasn't correct, he (assumably) sarcastically said my ideas were too complex (he disagrees), I misread one of his sentences, he doesn't use a smiley this time saying too complex...


er, nothing actually.

 

[Hadoblado]

TA: ENTP!!! infinite possibility

Hado: potato potato

TA: You are all so dense, you cannot possibly understand! *insert false representation of other's explicitly stated opinions*

Hado: *throws gloves in ring*

TA: *de-escalates with brash but vague narcissistic rambling*

 

[TimeAsylums]

It's a constant rolling trove of possibilities all at once, not sequential.

TA: ENTP!!! infinite possibility

Except, no. I said "all at once" versus "orderly." (original assumption)

Hado: potato potato

Only because of misinterpretation/false assumption of my original argument.

TA: You are all so dense, you cannot possibly understand! *insert false representation of other's explicitly stated opinions*

First part false, second part true.

TA: *de-escalates with brash but vague narcissistic rambling*

also true

 

[Absurdity]

Enjoy Siberia, TA.

Thread re-railed.

 

[Montresor]

We are only left to assume everything, including the make-up of our own cognitive functions, assuming they even exist at all.

I think that a person crediting their "intuition" (whatever that is) for sidestepping real obstacles in discussion is making a very big () assumption of their own.

By the razor. The razor!

 

[SpiralHacker]

Hadoblado is right on. [/thread]

 

[annany27]

Occam's razor states that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

 

[Hawkeye]

Occam's razor states that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Ironic considering you've made 3 threads on the same topic. ^^

 

[Brontosaurie]

this is the best thing to ever happen.

 

[Jennywocky]

Ironic considering you've made 3 threads on the same topic. ^^

I think it was actually four, but two got merged.

 

[Absurdity]

Ironic considering you've made 3 threads on the same topic. ^^

Making a joke at the expense of a new member who is likely in a fragile state of mind. How charming.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Making a joke at the expense of a new member who is likely in a fragile state of mind. How charming.

i assume she was joking too. either way her rampant-robot-mode is way too genious to be funny at her expense. it's simply hilarious.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Never take me seriously, it causes all sorts of problems.

 

[Jennywocky]

Never take me seriously, it causes all sorts of problems.

If we can't take this post seriously about not taking you seriously, well, now we're in a HUGE conundrum, aren't we? Thank you for forcing time and space to collapse in on itself.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Rest assured I'm sure that claim is applicable to all other statements yet void when referring to itself if that's possible, if there are no inconsistencies that come along with that.

 

[Hawkeye]

Rest assured I'm sure that claim is applicable to all other statements yet void when referring to itself if that's possible, if there are no inconsistencies that come along with that.

It is to all but the pedants.

:icon_pferdehaufen: <--- Absurdity and me.



[edit]

I have fixed my sig

 

[Vrecknidj]

Occam's razor has long fascinated me. After all, it's a pragmatic rule, and not a logical one. It might be a useful guide for trying to understand the world. Like many other presumptions, once we accept it, we then have to deal with the consequences of having accepted it.

I'm a fan of such economizing, sometimes. I'm also sometimes a fan of just opening up can after can of worms and not worrying about parsimony. Sometimes, I think, it's good to ask questions like "Hey, what if this Euclidian axiom is false?" and then see what happens.

 

[Jackooboy]

Occam's razor may make sense in the world of physical sciences trying to figure out small scale problems, but I have seen it not work in social sciences, politics, etc. It also kind of flies in the face of systems theory where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I am partial to systems theory...

 

[Brontosaurie]

the parts would be the entities posited and the whole the explanandum, eh? i don't see a conflict. explain.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Me neither, the subjects you deem Occam's Razor inadequate for are just subjects in which Occam's Razor has been applied without the "if all else equal" part which would make it shit regardless of subject.

 

[Jackooboy]

Bronto and Cherry. It's more a matter of experience. There seem to be J type personalities who are either or types who prefer reductionism using Ocam's Razor for everything, or not. I have had run ins with PhD students studying evolutionary biology who are obsessed with Ocam's Razor and reduce human existence to only physiological functioning. Gestalt psychology be damned... Systems theory be damned... etc. I have also had run ins with people who are simple and believe whatever the govt. tells them. My one friend said I was crazy a few years ago when I said the CIA spies domestically. He said it was a "conspiracy theory" and I was "crazy" and that Ocam's Razor didn't support it, etc. And now, we know I was right and he was wrong. I'm still partial to the CIA importing drugs to the US to supply their black ops. globally, but what do I know.

 

[Brontosaurie]

ah. i'd say the phenomenon you describe is a mis-application of occam's razor, overlooking critical variables. agreed?

 

[Hawkeye]

ah. i'd say the phenomenon you describe is a mis-application of occam's razor, overlooking critical variables. agreed?

Indeed.

Occam's razor merely gets rid of unnecessary fluff. If applied to subjects such as politics and law, we'd actually live in a better place.

Contracts for one would be easier to read. ^^


and for teh lulz...

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do

 

[RaBind]

Occam's razor is a tool used to find the hypotheses most likely to be correct. The probability of each hypothesis being true is dependent on what is currently known. Occam's razor doesn't find the truth, it discards unlikely hypotheses to leave you with those that are likely.

 

[scorpiomover]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

What are your thoughts on this.

Most people reach the wrong conclusion on this. The irrational behaviour you see in the world is the result of such irrational reasoning. Those who do reason it correctly, could and often did figure it out for themselves, before they were told of it. It should be banned, because those who do understand it, don't need it, and those that do need it, just use it as a justification for stupidity and causing harm to others.

 

[Hadoblado]

You could say that about any reasoning. I rarely see it misused by anyone not trying to disprove ye olde razor. And even when it is invoked unjustly, it's not particularly difficult to debunk.

 

[scorpiomover]

You could say that about any reasoning. I rarely see it misused by anyone not trying to disprove ye olde razor.

Honestly, I don't think there's a difference.

Einstein's razor tells us to simplify things as much as possible, but not simpler.

Occam's razor tells us to take the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions, but an oversimplification results in contradiction, which requires an immense number of assumptions in order to conform to reality (you need to rethink all of logic).

Thus, the only difference between the two (the caveat about oversimplification) is redundant, and should be removed according to the very principles of which we speak.

That, and Einstein is already celebrated enough. It's not even a direct quote, it's just vaguely attributed to him. Throw this William bloke a bone.

Einstein was talking about simplifying things as much as possible. William of Ockham was talking about not making any assumptions, which means things get a lot more complicated, when humans are assuming a lot of things, which is normally the case.

And even when it is invoked unjustly, it's not particularly difficult to debunk.

Try telling someone that quotes Occam's Razor as "the most simple (closest to the way I already think) explanation is usually the best". He thinks that the simplest explanation of Occam's Razor is the best explanation of Occam's Razor, and the simplest explanation of Occam's Razor, is what is most simple to him, i.e. what is closest to what he already thinks, which is "the most simple (closest to the way I already think) explanation is usually the best". Becomes a case of continually circular reasoning.