| From: Artos | 5/02/99
15:12:36 |
| Subject: Ockham's Razor | post id:
462 |
| My understanding is that Ockham's
Razor id the principle that, when presented with a range of possible
solutions to a question, the simplest is most likely to be right (or the
most accurate). 1) Is my understanding of this principle correct, or am I thinking of something else altogether? 2) Has this principle been shown to be correct (or accurate, or reliable) or is it a reflection of the human desire for simplicity and elegance? Artos | |
| From: Robbie Gates | 6/02/99
17:58:34 |
| Subject: re: Ockham's Razor | post id:
524 |
| I think Ockham's Razor is a tiny
bit subtler - it doesn't say what is right or wrong, but just that we should use the simplest solution which adequately explains the phenomena we observe. You ask: "Has this principle been shown to be correct (or accurate, or reliable) or is it a reflection of the human desire for simplicity and elegance?" As a principle, its hard to know what we could prove about it. Certainly theories arising from the application of Ockhams razor have succesfully explained things, so from that point of view i guess it has merit. I tend to view it more philosophically (which maybe plays to your second point) - why have complicated theories when we don't need them ? l8r, - robbie :-) | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 6/02/99
20:37:28 |
| Subject: re: Ockham's Razor | post id:
526 |
| It's basis is kind of a mix of
playing the odds and simple aesthetics, really. It is a philosophical principle, first attributed to William of Ockham, which says that given a choice of a number of explanations for a set of observations you should choose the explanation with the least number of "elements" (in other words the simplest). In terms of its practical application its simply the fairly common sense statement that, for any set of observations, the explanation which involves the least number of untested or unproven assumptions is probably the safest and most likely. This doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct explanation it just means it's the most probable. An amusing historical example of its application (or rather delayed application) came with the advent of lighting rods. When it was discovered that lightning was simply the flow of electrical charge between the clouds and the ground (by Benjamin Franklin, I think), and that damage to a building could be avoided simply by putting a copper rod from the ground up the side of your house, the Church was scandelised. They argued that lightning was not just a simple electrical phenomenon but devine retribution - the ultimate ACT OF GOD - and that to even think of using a lighting rod to avoid that retribution was sinful and would have even worse consequences. So people had to decide which position to believe. "Lighting theory A" went - (i) when two oppositely charge objects are brought into close contact a spark results [verfiable]. (ii) when a conductor is placed between these objects the spark can be controlled [verifiable]). (iii) if lightning is just the spark that results from the flow of charge flow oppositely charged objects it should also be controllable by a conductor [assumption]. And "Lightning theory B" went - (i) there is a god and he is a vengeful god waiting to punish the mearest departure from his laws [assumption?] (ii) this god can directly influence and alter the rules of the natural world [assumption?] (iii) lighting is one of the tools of God's vengences [assumption?] (iv) any attempt to avoid retribution is futile and so the use of a lightning rod is simply an act of impiety demanding severe retribution [follows from (i)-(iii)?] Now, when the majority of buildings in a given town were eventually fitted with lightning rods (the natural state of humans is to sin, after all) with the exception of the churches (which were almost always built on the highest ground a town) what do you think was the result? When it was then found (after the installation of lightning rods in all non-church buildings) that the majority of the buildings destoryed by lightning strikes were churches, guess what happened? (I'll leave this as an exercise for you to work out at home ;-) Soupie twist, Ed G | |