-=> On 02-09-98  15:49, Paul Andinach said to Ivy Iverson,<=-
-=>"About Occam...,"<=-
-=> Quoting Ivy Iverson to Paul Andinach <=-
 
Hi, Paul;
 
 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
 PA> I thought you understood. You can't use Occam's Razor to tailor the
 PA> evidence. You can claim that that's what you're doing, but it isn't.
 
_I_ undeerstand it, however a lot of people do not.  To them, the
"simplest explaination" is that, since _OUR_ science knows of no way to
travel between the stars, (ignoring that somebody else's science COULD
have solved this problem), so even IF intelligent life existed outside
our solar system, there is NO WAY that they could get from there to
here, therefore ETs CAN NOT be visiting us, therefore there are no UFOs
that come from "somewhere else."  PERIOD.  That is the application of
"the razor" which many people use... which IS NOT VALID IMO!  _THEY_
say this, _NOT ME!_
 
 II> B) The simplest explaination is NOT always the correct one!
 
 PA> Of course not.
 PA> But the point of Occam's Razor, which you don't seem to have
 PA> grasped, is that it only applies when all the possible explanations
 PA> would give exactly the same results. If you can't tell the difference
 PA> between "something is not happening" and "something is happening, but
 PA> all the evidence is being hidden or destroyed", it's not actually
 PA> going to make any difference which explanation you believe, but it's
 PA> easier on you if you believe the simple one.
 
I agree with you, however this is not how MANY people look at it!  And
THAT is what I mean when I say that Occam's razor is rusty, or that it's
used to cut the meat from the bone.  Yes, I KNOW that it is NOT the
correct application of the term... maybe I should say that's it's dull
from over-use.  Would you accept THAT?
 
 PA> The application of Occam's Razor is not an issue in the ET debate.
 PA> The problem is that the two sides can't agree whether the two
 PA> explanations do, in fact, describe the evidence equally well. If, as
 PA> you say, the evidence does support the ET theory better, then Occam's
 PA> Razor doesn't even get a look in.
 
Again, I agree.  It should stay in it's carrying case, however so many
people INSIST on bringing it out when it's use is NOT called for!
 
 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... ...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
 
 PA> In other words, the theory that the Moon is a flat disk does *not*
 PA> fit the available evidence. So Occam's Razor *doesn't* suggest that
 PA> the Moon is flat.
 
Agreed, however to MANY people, since when you look at the moon in a pair
of field glasses or small telescope, (or even naked eye), it LOOKS like
a disk, there are a lot of people who believe that's what it is DESPITE
the evidence to the contary.  And the Flat Earth society uses even
flimisier evidence that the Earth is a flat disk, (and they are SERIOUS
about it!)  Evidence?  Such things as, when there is a Lunar eclipse,
the shadow of the Earth APPEARS to be a (flat) disc, thus the Earth is
flat.  Yes, it's stupid, but these people believe it!
 
 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?
 PA> Did I say it was? All I meant was that is didn't have anything to
 PA> 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.
 PA> 
 PA> Au contraire. With an "i".
 
Yez, ay kno tat ay kant spel tew gud.   :-}
 
 PA> Keep watching the skis!
 
 II> Always!
 PA> 
 PA> An avid watcher of the Winter Olympics, are you? :)
 
>YYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!<  (That's a "no.")
 
 PA> ... I've made up my mind. Now to find some facts... ;)
 
The prevalant view among many, IMO.   :->
 
Catch you later... Keep l00king up!
   Ivy
 
 
 
... Just in... UFO takes Paul... More after the Olympic game...   ;-}
 
           --
 
 -=[ Ivy's WALL BBS  Hi, Jack!  Happy New Year to All! ]=-
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
--- TriToss (tm) 1.03 - (Unregistered)
---------------