5 ms·

As the thread has evolved, I am seeing better explanations of what happened, as well as better explanations of how the underlying technology worked. So I'll ta

by PakG1 11y ago

As the thread has evolved, I am seeing better explanations of what happened, as well as better explanations of how the underlying technology worked. So I'll take back my idea on the disgruntled employee. I originally posted when I saw very few comments. That being said, I'd like to clarify thoughts on Occam's Razor. It's a bit off-topic, but I think it would be an enlightening discussion and don't expect it to go on long. The rest of the discussion here about OP is far more interesting. I just appreciate it if someone points out when my logic is flawed, so I hope you take it the same way. It is used as "a heuristic technique" and "is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result." Occam's Razor says nothing about what the actual truth is - it's just a tool use when choosing hypotheses to pursue. I don't think you and I disagree with anything here. I am surprised and curious as to why you might think I thought otherwise. Using your words instead of mine, I was curious why the investigation was so quickly pursuing the hypothesis of foreign governments hacking Juniper's engineering team to plant code. My question has now been answered as the thread evolved. I think that you understand Occam's Razor's letter and how it is used in academic circles, but you do not understand how its spirit still applies in non-academic circles. Occam's Razor simply states (quoting from the Wikipedia article): "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Hypotheses are theories on how the world works. Detectives also have their hypotheses in their investigations on what happened in a crime. Infosec professionals also have their hypotheses on what makes a newfound piece of malware tick. Kepler, the FBI agent that chases serial killers, and the Symantec guys who discovered Stuxnet all share in common the dogged determination to figure out the truth by chasing facts. If you want to be a stickler on semantics and say that Occam’s Razor is referring to scientifically testable hypotheses, it seems a bit too dogmatic to say that we can’t scientifically test with experiments whether someone is the person that stuck the knife in another person, so Occam’s Razor should never be discussed. Good (I emphasize good) police work doesn’t make it necessary to design an experiment for that. Focusing on simpler ideas that fit the facts is more profitable than focusing on grandiose ideas, even if grandiose ideas also fit the facts, if both ideas explain the subject equally (equal quality of explanation being a key point of consideration, as discussed in the Wikipedia article). Those grandiose ideas aren't discarded because Occam's Razor is indeed only "a heuristic technique" and "is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result." If more facts arise that cause the simpler explanations to lose weight, the investigator changes course. I fear you are projecting too many assumptions onto people who cite Occam’s Razor, thinking that they’re taking Occam’s Razor to mean license to conclude an argument as finished when most people likely are not doing so. Certainly, I wasn’t. :)

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> Focusing on simpler ideas that fit the facts is more profitable than focusing on grandiose ideas, even if grandiose ideas also fit the facts Prove it. There is no scientific basis for Occam's razor. It's just a rule of thumb, used by its originator to suggest that the simplest explanation for everything is God. Feel free to use it for ordering possible explanations by complexity, but don't mistake it for a scientific tool, because it isn't.
- PakG1 11y ago
  Well, this is getting a bit longer than I wanted for an off-topic thread, but... Prove it. OK, I'll see what I can do to change your mind. :) There is no scientific basis for Occam's razor. It's just a rule of thumb YES Feel free to use it for ordering possible explanations by complexity YES but don't mistake it for a scientific tool, because it isn't. Wrong. As was stated by colordrops above, it's a heuristic technique. As you said, it's useful for ordering levels of complexity. Where you and he may disagree with me is that such a tool is an excellent tool for pursuing investigations. This is where my choice of the word "profitable" comes into play. Someone is figuring out some mystery and has hypotheses X and Y. For Occam's Razor to apply, X and Y have to have equal predictive performance, but Y is more grandiose. As such, X is more likely, per Occam's Razor. Pursuing X will either result in X being proven correct (at least until new contradictory information arises later), or quickly pivoting to Y (or in the worst-case scenario, new hypothesis Z). This course of action results in the least amount of time and resources wasted. It is by definition more profitable. You could choose to investigate Y first, but being more grandiose, it will be much more difficult to test Y. If Y turns out to be wrong, you will have wasted much more time and resources. If someone chooses Y first, it's because X and Y are NOT equal, and Occam's Razor then would not be relevant. This guy gives a much better explanation of Occam's Razor than I ever could: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Occams-Razor-true https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Occams-Razor-true Most changes in accepted theories are not because Occam's razor picked them - but because data falsified the preceding theory that Occam's razor picked for a newer one - turning the old one into merely a useful model - and eliminating it from discussion (falsified). Seriously, why would anyone jump to investigate a more complicated hypothesis when there's a simpler hypothesis to investigate, and both hypotheses have equal explanation performance and supporting evidence? It is far less expensive to investigate the simpler hypothesis first. It certainly is not acceptable to be dismissive of the simpler hypothesis. At the time of my original comment, there was almost no information in the thread. There certainly was zero information in the OP article. Given multiple possible explanations, I could not see any reason why the article jumped to the foreign nation state explanation. Imagine what that would have involved: - hacking their engineering team to remotely modify the code - infiltrating their engineering team with a mole to modify the code Both of these are big conspiracy theories. With no additional information, what is more likely? That or: - crap, that guy that left the company in a huff really hated us and had to screw us one last time - whoops, our engineering team accidentally screwed up bad Since when is jumping to conspiracy theories without good reasons an acceptable pattern of logic? edit: formatting

by PakG1 11y ago

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> Focusing on simpler ideas that fit the facts is more profitable than focusing on grandiose ideas, even if grandiose ideas also fit the facts Prove it. There is no scientific basis for Occam's razor. It's just a rule of thumb, used by its originator to suggest that the simplest explanation for everything is God. Feel free to use it for ordering possible explanations by complexity, but don't mistake it for a scientific tool, because it isn't.

PakG1 11y ago
Well, this is getting a bit longer than I wanted for an off-topic thread, but... Prove it. OK, I'll see what I can do to change your mind. :) There is no scientific basis for Occam's razor. It's just a rule of thumb YES Feel free to use it for ordering possible explanations by complexity YES but don't mistake it for a scientific tool, because it isn't. Wrong. As was stated by colordrops above, it's a heuristic technique. As you said, it's useful for ordering levels of complexity. Where you and he may disagree with me is that such a tool is an excellent tool for pursuing investigations. This is where my choice of the word "profitable" comes into play. Someone is figuring out some mystery and has hypotheses X and Y. For Occam's Razor to apply, X and Y have to have equal predictive performance, but Y is more grandiose. As such, X is more likely, per Occam's Razor. Pursuing X will either result in X being proven correct (at least until new contradictory information arises later), or quickly pivoting to Y (or in the worst-case scenario, new hypothesis Z). This course of action results in the least amount of time and resources wasted. It is by definition more profitable. You could choose to investigate Y first, but being more grandiose, it will be much more difficult to test Y. If Y turns out to be wrong, you will have wasted much more time and resources. If someone chooses Y first, it's because X and Y are NOT equal, and Occam's Razor then would not be relevant. This guy gives a much better explanation of Occam's Razor than I ever could: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Occams-Razor-true https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Occams-Razor-true Most changes in accepted theories are not because Occam's razor picked them - but because data falsified the preceding theory that Occam's razor picked for a newer one - turning the old one into merely a useful model - and eliminating it from discussion (falsified). Seriously, why would anyone jump to investigate a more complicated hypothesis when there's a simpler hypothesis to investigate, and both hypotheses have equal explanation performance and supporting evidence? It is far less expensive to investigate the simpler hypothesis first. It certainly is not acceptable to be dismissive of the simpler hypothesis. At the time of my original comment, there was almost no information in the thread. There certainly was zero information in the OP article. Given multiple possible explanations, I could not see any reason why the article jumped to the foreign nation state explanation. Imagine what that would have involved: - hacking their engineering team to remotely modify the code - infiltrating their engineering team with a mole to modify the code Both of these are big conspiracy theories. With no additional information, what is more likely? That or: - crap, that guy that left the company in a huff really hated us and had to screw us one last time - whoops, our engineering team accidentally screwed up bad Since when is jumping to conspiracy theories without good reasons an acceptable pattern of logic? edit: formatting