RE: Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?
March 11, 2018 at 2:38 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2018 at 2:41 am by GrandizerII.)
(March 11, 2018 at 1:31 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(March 11, 2018 at 12:15 am)Grandizer Wrote: Why is it you take us for idiots, RR? Why did you argue against resorting to the simplest idea in response to Hammy when he actually used the word "parsimonious" instead? And there is a difference between the two terms. Not all explanations that are relatively simple are relatively parsimonious, but all explanations that are relatively parsimonious are relatively simple. Simplicity, in this context, is defined in terms of the number of assumptions made, and parsimony is only partly defined in terms of simplicity.
Or in other words:
parsimony = simplicity + sufficient correspondence to observed evidence
Actually the definition for "parsimony" means to be frugal or extreme economy. I'm not sure where you got your definition from. However in this context I didn't mean to imply anything different. As I mentioned, in reference to Occam's Razor, versions of the word "simple" are often seen, and I don't think there is any distinction being made with the word "parsimonious" when they are interchanged. I don't think that I have ever seen "parsimony" defined in quite the way you have, but nerveless I wasn't trying to convey anything different. Frankly I think it is the context with both words that conveys that particular meaning. In the end, the goal is that we not make things more complicated than need be.
You may also be interested to look up the Principle of Simplicity...
This is what you said previously in response to Hammy:
Quote:Also... you don’t just automatically go with the simplest idea no matter what.... I don’t think you understand this either.
I'm going by the words you're using here, and it seems to me that you weren't thinking of simplicity in terms of "explanation" and "evidence", but merely in terms of the simplicity of the idea itself.
I distinguish between parsimony and simplicity to make it clear that parsimony isn't mere simplicity. However, if you understand what simplicity is supposed to mean scientifically and philosophically speaking, then great.
After all:
Quote:“Ockham’s razor”, which is often interpreted as enjoining us to prefer the simplest theory consistent with the available evidence
http://www.iep.utm.edu/simplici/
(March 11, 2018 at 2:14 am)Succubus Wrote:(March 11, 2018 at 12:15 am)Grandizer Wrote:
Succubus
RoadRunner, for the most part you have been given the benefit of the doubt with regard to your understanding of how to apply logic and reasoning, but with this claim of yours that there is more that one version of Billy's razor! You are straining your credibility to the limit.
Please tell me you are not a standard issue off the shelf apologist. Help me by addressing this very simple postulate:
Where did the universe come from.
a) God made it.
b) We don't know.
Now apply the razor.
Well, 'b' isn't an explanation. It's just a statement of ignorance, so Occam's razor doesn't apply here (I think).
But yeah, 'b' is far more reasonable a stance to take than silly 'a'. God explanations fail on so many accounts and in so many ways I can't take such explanations seriously.
No! Fuckin no!
Yes! Fuckin yes!
Quote:One. Last. Time.
Where did the universe come from.
a) God made it.
b) We don't know.
Now apply the razor. And this is the last time Y'all have to get it right.
Once again, you can't apply the razor here because 'b' is just a statement of ignorance. It's not an attempt to explain anything, dude.
