Anecdotal Evidence

[bennyboy]

About Occam's razor:

There must be caveats. One is that the idea being proposed is a good explanation. The simplest answer to EVERY question would be "Goddidit" or "physicsdidit." But these general claims aren't very good explanations for specific questions, like "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is gravity?"

In difficult philosophical questions, like why does something exist rather than nothing, we have a problem. While "Goddidit" isn't very satisfying to non-theists, there really isn't, and probably can't be, a better explanation, and the only simpler explanation is to refuse to explain: to posit reality as a brute fact.

[Mister Agenda]

The problems with 'goddidit' in terms of Occam's Razor are that it doesn't actually explain anything and it's an unnecessary multiplication of entities, the very thing the razor is supposed to shave off.

[bennyboy]

The problems with 'goddidit' in terms of Occam's Razor are that it doesn't actually explain anything and it's an unnecessary multiplication of entities, the very thing the razor is supposed to shave off.

It's a singular entity.  The only thing simpler to that, as I just mentioned, would be brute fact-- that NOTHING caused anything to exist-- or another singular entity-- for example, physicsdidit.  But physicsdidit isn't really better than goddidit.

Is the God idea coherent?  Not if you think of Skydaddy.  But if you think of God as a philosophical creative principle, predicated on an idealistic beginning to the physical universe, then it is no worse than any other philosophical approach to reality.

[Mister Agenda]

But it's not a necessary entity. Shave it off. Occam's razor isn't just about picking the simplest explanation, it's about picking the simplest explanation consistent with observation. It is sometimes stated as: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. God is a big assumption. A more complex hypothesis can be preferable to a simpler one under the razor if the additional entities in the complex hypothesis are necessary.

[bennyboy]

But it's not a necessary entity. Shave it off. Occam's razor isn't just about picking the simplest explanation, it's about picking the simplest explanation consistent with observation. It is sometimes stated as: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. God is a big assumption. A more complex hypothesis can be preferable to a simpler one under the razor if the additional entities in the complex hypothesis are necessary.

You are saying exactly what I said about 2 posts ago, and which you gave kudos to.

But I've given a particularly specific definition of God: a philosophical creative principle, i.e. something which preceded the Universe (logically, not necessarily temporally), but is itself not of the universe.  All things would come from it, but it itself wouldn't be a thing.  All mind would come from it, but it itself wouldn't be (or have) a mind.

The problem with the God idea really only comes into play when people start making narratives of it talking to their ancestors, and using this as the basis for blowing up buildings or cutting off heads.  As a philosophical idea, it really isn't more complex than anything else. Nor does any other explanation offer answers where a vague God-as-principle idea fails to.

[Cyberman]

Occam's Razor speaks of not multiplying entities beyond necessity. God is an unnecessary entity. Cut it.

[Angrboda]

In a similar vein, the appeal to anecdote must be measured against Occam's razor.  If a claim appears unrealistic or extraordinary given the background knowledge of the case, then it perhaps should be disbelieved in favor of the more plausible explanations of lie, mistake, or error.  The caller's method was flawed because he was not making a reasonable appeal to an examination of the weight of evidence of scientist's testimony but simply cleaving to a predetermined supposition that all such testimony was unreliable.

I believe this is an error in use, of the Occam's Razor.  The difficulty, and I believe what was shown in this particular call, is that background knowledge varies (it's subjective), and previous beliefs should not be the measuring stick of new evidence (especially if you are going to insert lying, mistake, or delusional and the like).   This is good, if you want to hold to the your beliefs and ignore evidence (but then it would seem difficult or at least hypocritical to criticize another for doing the same thing).

The formation of new opinion must always be checked by prior knowledge, else it is based on nothing but groundless supposition which is itself irrational. You can't make a rational leap based on what you don't know. Therefore the acquisition of new knowledge will always be conservative. This is only sensible. What are you suggesting, that one should depend upon an affirmative endorsement of evidence that one isn't qualified to understand?

According to Wikipedia:

Occam's Razor: The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. 

You may also find simpler in place of fewest assumptions, but I find that this is often misunderstood, in that simpler is better, even if it does not account for all the facts.   Therefore, I do prefer the above quote from WikiP.

The most similar claim made by Occam himself was

one can cite statements such as Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity]

or don't add more than what is needed.  I do find that this shows where the simpler and fewest assumptions terms come into the picture in the above definitions.  

I could see this as applying, in that, as you add collaborating testimony, then it is required to make more assumptions, in adding lying, mistaken, or in error.  And I would agree, that this does often apply the testimony of science.   Although I may caution against merely assuming this, and fore going checking out what others say, simply because someone make a claim of science.

I think you're misunderstanding the application of Occam's razor here. Whenever a hypothesis as endorsed by testimony requires the assumption of unevidenced components to one's model of reality, they automatically acquire a burden of unjustified necessities which is not so with the lie, mistake, or error explanations. So it becomes a straightforward Bayesian choice of alternatives among competing hypotheses in which the hypothesis elucidated by testimony loses. So, no, I think you are in error here.
 

The following site, includes a video of the Foucault Pendulum.   It is a very cool demonstration of the rotation of the Earth.  However, I think that one who wishes to be hyperskeptical could still easily ignore the evidence and the testimony.   Even in watching a video, one needs to place some trust, in that what is said to be occurring actually is.   Personally I think that a witness of what was tested and observed is enough, but if not, then the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim to demonstrate this personally for them.

I don't know what point you're making with this. In evaluating whether to trust the testimony of science in relation to a phenomenon, one must make an evaluation of what one knows of the behavior of the community of scientists in general. If one is unacquainted with this body as a trustworthy source of new evidence, then one is rationally justified in rejecting its testimony where the evidence is not clearly demonstrated but merely vetted by reputation. As noted earlier, this process is by nature inclined to be conservative, but it is the only rational way for an enquirer to proceed. What would you suggest in its stead? Blind faith?

[bennyboy]

Occam's Razor speaks of not multiplying entities beyond necessity. God is an unnecessary entity. Cut it.

It depends what you're trying to explain.  I think with regard to ontology, the simplest position is a shrug: I don't know, so I won't assert.  If one insists on debating ontology, then one must introduce SOME unnecessary term or quantity, since the simplest position is that existence was never created, and there's nothing to explain, and the debate implies that that simplest position has been discarded.

At that level, the God idea serves as a kind of placeholder for paradox: the creator which need not be created, the singular which allows for infinity, and so on. Whether "God" is the best term for that philosophical quantity is a matter of opinion-- but so long as we're not talking about Sky Daddy, positing a philosophical "being" isn't really a problem for me, since it can be taken, in varying degrees, literally or figuratively.

[robvalue]

God turned up at the hospital. He granted me divine authority, that everything I say is now true by definition, including this.

He also said some people will deny the truth of this, and they are wrong, by definition.

[bennyboy]

God turned up at the hospital. He granted me divine authority, that everything I say is now true by definition, including this.

He also said some people will deny the truth of this, and they are wrong, by definition.

I also like morphine.  Tell them you're a number 8!  Dude. . . tell them you're a NUMBER EIGHT!