>>> Part 1 of 2...
 
-=> On 02-02-98  19:33, Paul Andinach said to Ivy Iverson,<=-
-=>"About Occam...,"<=-
-=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Paul Andinach <=-
 
Hi, Paul;
 
 II> If you are talking ABOUT me, why not say it TO me?
 PA> I tried that last time, and it didn't seem to work.
 
Just because I don't reply doesn't mean I didn't see and read it.  I am
active in a bunch of echos, and moderate or co-moderate several of them,
plus I have other things to do, so I often don't have time to reply to
all.
 
 II> Excuse me, but I DO know what Occam's Razor is, HOWEVER the way it's
 II> used by both believers and non-believers, (in UFOs and ETs), it's used
 II> to slice away that which THAT PERSON does not believe to be factual
 II> and/or believable...
 PA> If that is the case, then I apologise....
 
Accepted.
 
...
 
 PA> Given a choice between two hypotheses that explain the evidence
 PA> equally well, go with the hypothesis that's simpler.
 
And when I say that Occam's razor is rusty, I mean that:
 
A) it is often used to "taylor" the facts/evidence to coincide with
   preconcieved beliefs, and/or
 
B) The simplest explaination is NOT always the correct one!  Just
   because the Moon APPEARS to be a flat disk, to someone who knows
   absoloutely nothing about the solar system and orbital mechanics,
   Occam's razor suggests that the Moon IS flat.
...
 
 PA> If that is so, then how do we all "know" that Earth and Moon are
 PA> spheres? 
 
Because the distance from Earth to different parts of the Moon can be
measured with great accuracy, and those parts which appear near the
edge of the "disk" are indeed many miles farther away from us than what
we see as the center.  Also, by observing the phases of the Moon in
relation to the Sun, the only way that particular pattern of the way
the terminator moves accross the visible face of the Moon is if it, at
least the side facing us, is spherical.  If it were flat, it would go
from full Moon to new Moon very abruptly, however a primitive would
believe this: Another mis-application of Occam's Razor!
...
 
 II> and, (here is the point), it is this same application of the slicer
 II> that is used in the ET/UFO dispute.  The non-believers feel that either
 II> it is impossible for ETs to visit us or they simply don't exist, so
 II> "the razor" dictates that they aren't here.
 PA> That's not using Occam's Razor, that's just a crippling lack of
 PA> objectivity. 
 
I disagree.  The SIMPLEST explaination, as dictated by the razor, is that
they are not there and visiting us.  HOWEVER, does this mean that they
CANNOT exist and CANNOT be visiting us?  H___ NO!  It just says that
there's just GOTTA be a "simpler" explaination than "They're here."
Then the Occomite sits around saying to him/herself, "Since Occum tells
me that "they" aren't here, then let's find something ELSE to explain
all these strange sightings, all these strange tales told by so may
people, etc. etc. etc.  TO me, this is slicing meat, because the razor
simply dictates a LIKELYHOOD, NOT A DEFINATE, INCONTROVERTABLE FACT!
Even the records of Projects Grudge, BlueBook and the other
"UFO investigative" projects, which had as their goals to gather all the
info they coiuld find and CONVINCE EVERYONE THAT IT WAS NOT A UFO that
they saw... even thos project records indicate that fully TEN PERCENT
COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED as anything known to our science!  Yes, there
were a lot of fakes.  There were a lot of sightings of Venus/mars/comets/
meteors/planes/rockets/swamp gas (blah blah blah), or anything else
which could be explained as SOMETHING!  Even the expert debunkers, (Def:
one who considers everything to be bunk and sets about to prove their
concepts, whether factualk or not), could NOT explain that last 10%
Sure, they told the witnesses that ot was Venus or whatever -
notwithstanding the fact that Venus was either invisible or over the
horizon!
 
 II> The believers, OTOH,
 II> accept at least a FEW of the pictures which allegedly show UFOs,
 II> (though many if not most are fakes!), and that the testimony of those
 II> who claim to have been abducted MAY have some degree of truth, and
 II> reject the "razored" explainations.
 PA> And that's drawing conclusions from bad evidence.
 
Is that worse that disregarding evidence which DOES NOT FIT THE BELIEFS?
 
 PA> Admittedly, some people do ignore evidence they don't like, or
 PA> search only  for evidence to support their view. Alas, this happens.
 PA> But Occam's Razor has *nothing* *to* *do* *with* *it*.
 II> But they CLAIM it does!!!
 PA> And so do you. Or so it seems to me.
 
Au contrare.
 
 PA> Paul "If I see that elementary mistake one more time, I'll scream"
 PA> Andinach
 II> Elementary?  What's obvious to one person, another is blind to.
...
 PA> ... It always helps if you know what you're talking about.
 II> Do I detect an implied insult here?
 PA> I'd take the Fifth, but I prefer to avoid drinks with high alcohol
 PA> contents. ;)
 
Wisdom is apparent.   :->
 
 II> Catch you later... Keep l00king up!  (You might see a UFO!)
 PA> Keep watching the skis!
 
Always!
 
Catch you later... Keep l00king up!
 
 >>> Continued to next message...
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
---------------