DB> You're forgetting the part about explaining the evidence.  There is
 DB> more  evidence dealing with the moon than just "It looks like a circle
 DB> from here."   
 II>  
 II> For instance, (on topic here), UFO's: Many can be explained by 
verything
 II> from weather balloons to birds to temperature inversions to the planet
 II> Venus, but not ALL!
That's right, not all can be explained.  In many cases, this is because there 
simply isn't enough information to explain it.  
 II>  _ONE_ possability is that there COULD be someone
 II> from "somewhere else," but this is not the *SIMPLEST POSSIBLE*
 II> explaination,
No, it is not the simplest possible explanation, nor is it a likely one.  
However:
 II> so some people, feeling that it would be *IMPOSSIBLE* for
 II> some other race from some other place to have developed interstellar
 II> travel, will latch onto *ANYTHING* which does *NOT* involve "Someone 
lse
 II> from somewhere else." 
I do not say it is "IMPOSSIBLE" either.  Unlikely?  Yes.  But not impossible.
 II> Therefore, according to *THEIR* interpretation,
 II> it HAS to be (pick one): Earthly aircraft (military?); weather balloon;
 II> birds; shooting stars; satellites; swamp gas; temperature inversions;
 II> the planet Venus; mass hysteria; hoax; [Add a few dozen more]... 
NYTHING
 II> except someone else from somewhere else.  Is THIS using Occam's Razor, 
r
 II> is it just denial of a POSSIBLE fact because "it just can't be!"?
Occam's Razor, as you indicated, suggests that aliens are not the most likely 
cause of UFO sightings.  However, as I have explained in a previous post, 
Occam's Razor doesn't prove anything, it just says that one is better off, in 
general, sticking with the simpler explanation for the observed evidence.  
*IF* further evidence were to show up (say, an "alien ashtray"), then we 
would have to revisit that explanation.
 II> After all, MOST sightings CAN be explained by "something else." 
Indeed they can.
 II> Does this mean that they are ALL "something else?"  So even if the  II> 
same thing CAN be explained as EITHER a craft from "somewhere else"  II> OR 
one of the above alternatives, is it using Occum's razor to say  II> that it 
HAS to be the something else JUST BECAUSE THERE CAN'T BE ANY  II> 
EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS HERE?  I think not. 
In this case, you're correct -- Occam's Razor doesn't say that.  So I'm not 
sure what point you're trying to argue.
 II> What is YOUR explaination?
For what?
 DB> But, yes, you're right, the simplest explanation is NOT always the
 DB> correct one. That's why you keep looking for evidence.  But when you
 DB> are faced with two  possible explanations for the same set of
 DB> information, your best bet is to go  with the simpler one.  Nobody is
 DB> saying that Occam's Razor PROVES anything,  because it doesn't (the
 DB> movie _Contact_, for example, screwed up on this 
 DB> point  at the end).  
 II>  
 II> As I pointed out above, the "simplest" explaination is NOT necessarily
 II> always the correct one!
Um, Ivy, did you read my message before replying?  I _agreed_ with you.  
Look, it's still quoted above.
 II> Therefore I will state once and for all, that
 II> people use the term "Occum's Razor" to shave off what they cannot bring
 II> themselves to agree is POSSIBLE, which is _NOT_ the correct use of "the
 II> razor."  THAT is what I mean when I say that Occum's razor is rusty,
But you're wrong.  It's not the Razor that's rusty in those cases (presuming 
they actually exist), it's the person's reasoning.  The Razor is just fine.
 II> Now HOPEFULLY this will end the subject and the thread.
That's really up to you.
        
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------