Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Philosophy, Metaphysics & the Afterlife
Occam's Razor
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ayasano" data-source="post: 90577" data-attributes="member: 4804"><p>Occam's Razer doesn't actually mean the simplest explanation. It means the explanation with the <strong><em>fewest assumptions</em></strong>. It sounds similar, which is why people tend to sum it up that way, but it's actually an important distinction.</p><p></p><p>A good example is the time travel equivalent of Fermi's Paradox. (If time travel exists, why are there no time travellers?) One explanation is that time travel doesn't exist, which means that explanation requires a single assumption. (Time travel being impossible) Another explanation might be that time travel does exist, but time travellers are required to keep themselves hidden from the public. That explanation requires two assumptions. (1. Time travel exists. 2. Time travellers must keep themselves hidden)</p><p></p><p>An assumption is anything that you don't know for certain to be true. So the existence of, say, gravity, wouldn't be counted as an assumption, because we know gravity exists. (A particular cause of gravity might be an assumption though, depending on the context)</p><p></p><p>Occam's Razer just says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is <strong><em>usually</em></strong> the right one. It's similar to how doctors in the West say "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." You check the explanation with the least assumptions first, and if you rule that out, you move on to explanations that require more assumptions.</p><p></p><p>Occam's Razer only works with independently verifiable things, things that can be tested. Applying it to anecdotes doesn't really work, because it's impossible to know what assumptions are being made because people rarely include every little detail in their anecdotes.</p><p></p><p>There was a video on here a while back that gave a good example. A lightshade was moving, seemingly of its own volition, and one person claimed it was a ghost. The other person reached down and switched off a floor fan beneath the lamp that was blowing on the lightshade. If the first person had told the anecdote, they would likely have not noticed the fan, and thus have given an incomplete description of the event, making it impossible to apply Occam's Razer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ayasano, post: 90577, member: 4804"] Occam's Razer doesn't actually mean the simplest explanation. It means the explanation with the [B][I]fewest assumptions[/I][/B]. It sounds similar, which is why people tend to sum it up that way, but it's actually an important distinction. A good example is the time travel equivalent of Fermi's Paradox. (If time travel exists, why are there no time travellers?) One explanation is that time travel doesn't exist, which means that explanation requires a single assumption. (Time travel being impossible) Another explanation might be that time travel does exist, but time travellers are required to keep themselves hidden from the public. That explanation requires two assumptions. (1. Time travel exists. 2. Time travellers must keep themselves hidden) An assumption is anything that you don't know for certain to be true. So the existence of, say, gravity, wouldn't be counted as an assumption, because we know gravity exists. (A particular cause of gravity might be an assumption though, depending on the context) Occam's Razer just says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is [B][I]usually[/I][/B] the right one. It's similar to how doctors in the West say "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." You check the explanation with the least assumptions first, and if you rule that out, you move on to explanations that require more assumptions. Occam's Razer only works with independently verifiable things, things that can be tested. Applying it to anecdotes doesn't really work, because it's impossible to know what assumptions are being made because people rarely include every little detail in their anecdotes. There was a video on here a while back that gave a good example. A lightshade was moving, seemingly of its own volition, and one person claimed it was a ghost. The other person reached down and switched off a floor fan beneath the lamp that was blowing on the lightshade. If the first person had told the anecdote, they would likely have not noticed the fan, and thus have given an incomplete description of the event, making it impossible to apply Occam's Razer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Philosophy, Metaphysics & the Afterlife
Occam's Razor
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top