Ockham's Razor

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If justifying OR is a straightforward empirical matter . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep saying this, when that isn't what the people you are arguing with are saying?

[borisp]

According to the principles of this razor, it is more likely to be spelled "Occam" than "Ockham." So I agree with Borodog on whatever he says.

[KipBond]

The people arguing that OR implies that certain theories are more likely 'true' or 'correct' have different definitions of those words than is meant in an empirical/scientific sense.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):

[ QUOTE ]
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

[/ QUOTE ]

which translates to:

[ QUOTE ]
entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The people arguing that OR implies that certain theories are more likely 'true' or 'correct' have different definitions of those words than is meant in an empirical/scientific sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. To wit:

[ QUOTE ]
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

What definition of "best"? My contention is that the only definition of "best" that can possibly have any meaning is "the most likely to be correct."

Again, if the simplest explanation is not more likely to be true than alternatives containing unnecessary complications, the what benefit is choosing the simpler one? What is the justification? These are the essential questions that keep getting dodged.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, if the simplest explanation is not more likely to be true than alternatives containing unnecessary complications, the what benefit is choosing the simpler one? What is the justification? These are the essential questions that keep getting dodged.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is this:

OR says nothing about which equally reliable & explanatory theory is "more likely to be true".

You can read a lot about this here:

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

We use the simplest of equally reliable & explanatory theories for various reasons: practicality, easier to learn, apply, remember, teach, etc. Once the more complicated model provides a bit more explanatory & reliable predictions, then simplicity takes a back seat when we need to be more accurate.

You can argue that, indeed, it is the case, that the simplest theory is "most likely to be true", and then you could create your own maxim for that. But, that's not Occam's Razor.

But, I think you'll be hard pressed to show that this is the case. It seems to me that more complicated models are usually more reliable & explanatory than simpler models. We still use the simpler models sometimes because they are easier and are 'good enough', but we know they are not "more likely to be true". There may be exceptions, but I think they are rare. Of course, at some point you are going to have to define & present a way to measure "simplest".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, if the simplest explanation is not more likely to be true than alternatives containing unnecessary complications, the what benefit is choosing the simpler one? What is the justification? These are the essential questions that keep getting dodged.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is this:

OR says nothing about which equally reliable & explanatory theory is "more likely to be true".

You can read a lot about this here:

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

We use the simplest of equally reliable & explanatory theories for various reasons: practicality, easier to learn, apply, remember, teach, etc. Once the more complicated model provides a bit more explanatory & reliable predictions, then simplicity takes a back seat when we need to be more accurate.

You can argue that, indeed, it is the case, that the simplest theory is "most likely to be true", and then you could create your own maxim for that. But, that's not Occam's Razor.

But, I think you'll be hard pressed to show that this is the case. It seems to me that more complicated models are usually more reliable & explanatory than simpler models. We still use the simpler models sometimes because they are easier and are 'good enough', but we know they are not "more likely to be true". There may be exceptions, but I think they are rare. Of course, at some point you are going to have to define & present a way to measure "simplest".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is better than my post.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people arguing that OR implies that certain theories are more likely 'true' or 'correct' have different definitions of those words than is meant in an empirical/scientific sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. To wit:

[ QUOTE ]
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

What definition of "best"? My contention is that the only definition of "best" that can possibly have any meaning is "the most likely to be correct."

Again, if the simplest explanation is not more likely to be true than alternatives containing unnecessary complications, the what benefit is choosing the simpler one? What is the justification? These are the essential questions that keep getting dodged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did my best to show the benefit, but I am at a loss to show the justification. I was always under the impression that the Razor is, in fact, unjustified. The benefit is simply that it is always easier if we can decide on one explanation or theory to talk about, EVEN IF WE REALIZE that there are an infinite number of acceptable ones. We could make any sort of arbitrary selection we wish, but the only one that ISN'T arbitrary is the Razor. Its my understanding that it is just as justified to instead choose the most complicated one, but that it is, in practice, impossible to do so. We can always find a more complicated explanation.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people arguing that OR implies that certain theories are more likely 'true' or 'correct' have different definitions of those words than is meant in an empirical/scientific sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. To wit:

[ QUOTE ]
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

What definition of "best"? My contention is that the only definition of "best" that can possibly have any meaning is "the most likely to be correct."

Again, if the simplest explanation is not more likely to be true than alternatives containing unnecessary complications, the what benefit is choosing the simpler one? What is the justification? These are the essential questions that keep getting dodged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did my best to show the benefit, but I am at a loss to show the justification. I was always under the impression that the Razor is, in fact, unjustified. The benefit is simply that it is always easier if we can decide on one explanation or theory to talk about, EVEN IF WE REALIZE that there are an infinite number of acceptable ones. We could make any sort of arbitrary selection we wish, but the only one that ISN'T arbitrary is the Razor. Its my understanding that it is just as justified to instead choose the most complicated one, but that it is, in practice, impossible to do so. We can always find a more complicated explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a matter of fact, Boro, if you interpret the Razor the way you seem to be doing, then what can the phrase "all else being equal" possibly mean? How could any two theories ever be equal in all else, since obviously "probability of being correct" is just about the only relevant "all else" and you are deeming it exactly NOT equal?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
We could make any sort of arbitrary selection we wish, but the only one that ISN'T arbitrary is the Razor. Its my understanding that it is just as justified to instead choose the most complicated one, but that it is, in practice, impossible to do so. We can always find a more complicated explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are other non-arbitrary criteria which one might use. Cleverness, for example.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We could make any sort of arbitrary selection we wish, but the only one that ISN'T arbitrary is the Razor. Its my understanding that it is just as justified to instead choose the most complicated one, but that it is, in practice, impossible to do so. We can always find a more complicated explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are other non-arbitrary criteria which one might use. Cleverness, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the same one I'm using.