-=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Paul Andinach <=-
 II> And when I say that Occam's razor is rusty, I mean that:
 II> A) it is often used to "taylor" the facts/evidence to coincide with
 II> preconcieved beliefs
   I thought you understood. You can't use Occam's Razor to tailor the
evidence. You can claim that that's what you're doing, but it isn't.
 II> B) The simplest explaination is NOT always the correct one!
   Of course not.
   But the point of Occam's Razor, which you don't seem to have
grasped, is that it only applies when all the possible explanations
would give exactly the same results. If you can't tell the difference
between "something is not happening" and "something is happening, but
all the evidence is being hidden or destroyed", it's not actually
going to make any difference which explanation you believe, but it's
easier on you if you believe the simple one.
   The application of Occam's Razor is not an issue in the ET debate.
The problem is that the two sides can't agree whether the two
explanations do, in fact, describe the evidence equally well. If, as
you say, the evidence does support the ET theory better, then Occam's
Razor doesn't even get a look in.
 II> Just
 II> because the Moon APPEARS to be a flat disk, to someone who knows
 II> absoloutely nothing about the solar system and orbital mechanics,
 II> 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?
 II> Because...
 II>                                ...by observing the phases of the Moon
 II> in relation to the Sun, the only way that particular pattern of the way
 II> the terminator moves accross the visible face of the Moon is if it, at
 II> least the side facing us, is spherical.  If it were flat, it would go
 II> from full Moon to new Moon very abruptly
   In other words, the theory that the Moon is a flat disk does *not*
fit the available evidence. So Occam's Razor *doesn't* suggest that
the Moon is flat.
 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.
 II> Is that worse that disregarding evidence which DOES NOT FIT THE
 II> BELIEFS?
   Did I say it was? All I meant was that is didn't have anything to
do with Occam's Razor.
 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.
 II> Au contrare.
   Au contraire. With an "i".
 PA> Keep watching the skis!
 II> Always!
   An avid watcher of the Winter Olympics, are you? :)
Paul
... I've made up my mind. Now to find some facts... ;)
--- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 [NR]
---------------