4 ms·

"they did something and it caused them to crash" isn't really an explanation...so don't go ruling out other valid explanations as "too complicated" till you hav

by shkkmo 6y ago

"they did something and it caused them to crash" isn't really an explanation...so don't go ruling out other valid explanations as "too complicated" till you have enough information to create a proper alternative. Otherwise you are mis-applying occam's razor. Occam's razor isn't a rule of logic, it is a heuristic to help you navigate complicated epistemic situations.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
I think what you're saying is that if you don't have a good explanation, then everything goes, you're free to imagine anything you want. Until "you have enough information to create a propper alternative" you can "multiply entities" to your heart's content- and make any kind of assumption you like. Is that what you mean?
- tyingq 6y ago
  Yeah, sure. He means that "3rd person fled the scene" is on par with "Space Aliens".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- shkkmo 6y ago
  In saying that you are using Occam's Razor which is soley intended for distinguish two theories of identical explanatory value. There are plenty of other epistemic tools to evaluate the likihood of various incomplete explanations with different levels of explanatory power. Edit: Occam's Razor is like a tie breaker after you have brought out all your other epistemic tools and failed to break the tie. You are nowhere near that point.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> In saying that you are using Occam's Razor which is soley intended for distinguish two theories of identical explanatory value. Is it? The Razor says "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" (see wikipedia). Assuming a third person is "multiplying entities without necessity". Any explanation that assumes a third person is "multiplying entities without necessity". So it should be cut by the Razor, meaning we don't need to consider it. It doesn't matter if there is no better explanation yet. Any explanation that doesn't assume a third person in the car will always be better than any explanation that assumes a third person in the car. So the Razor can indeed help us distinguish between likely explanations even when we haven't yet formulated those explanations. Also, I'm curious- do you really think that if we don't have a good explanation then we're free to imagine anything we want? That's an obvious error of reasoning that you would have tried to avoid if you were aware of it, yet it really seems to me that this is what you're doing. Would you like to go over that for a bit? Edit: I've edited this comment repeatedly to make it less contentious, like HN guidelines advice. I suggest we refrain from discussion of technicalities and avoid veering off into technical language, otherwise we'll just make this conversation even more tedious than it already is.
    - shkkmo 6y ago
      I explained to you what kind of epistemic tool the Razor is. There are plenty of other tools that let you make arguments about the likihood that there was an additional person present. You can't make that argument with that Razor. If you would like a more detailed understanding of why the Razor is limited to this use, you'll have to out more effort into learning epistemology than perusing wikipedia. It is an interesting topic and worth your time and attention. The sort version is that this is the only way to use the razor that increases the reliability of your epistemic process.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        See, when I said that we should refrain from discussion of technicalities, the reason was to avoid the tactic you're employing now, of trying to "win" the conversation by saying I don't understand the Razor etc. This is an underhanded tactic that does not honour you and demeans me as your interlocutor. You suggest I lack a detailed understanding of why the Razor is limited to a particular use. I pointed to wikipedia because it's a resource that is easy to access. According to wikipedia, then, the Razor says: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Do you disagree that this is the Razor?

by shkkmo 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

I think what you're saying is that if you don't have a good explanation, then everything goes, you're free to imagine anything you want. Until "you have enough information to create a propper alternative" you can "multiply entities" to your heart's content- and make any kind of assumption you like. Is that what you mean?

tyingq 6y ago
Yeah, sure. He means that "3rd person fled the scene" is on par with "Space Aliens".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
shkkmo 6y ago
In saying that you are using Occam's Razor which is soley intended for distinguish two theories of identical explanatory value. There are plenty of other epistemic tools to evaluate the likihood of various incomplete explanations with different levels of explanatory power. Edit: Occam's Razor is like a tie breaker after you have brought out all your other epistemic tools and failed to break the tie. You are nowhere near that point.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> In saying that you are using Occam's Razor which is soley intended for distinguish two theories of identical explanatory value. Is it? The Razor says "entities should not be multiplied without necessity" (see wikipedia). Assuming a third person is "multiplying entities without necessity". Any explanation that assumes a third person is "multiplying entities without necessity". So it should be cut by the Razor, meaning we don't need to consider it. It doesn't matter if there is no better explanation yet. Any explanation that doesn't assume a third person in the car will always be better than any explanation that assumes a third person in the car. So the Razor can indeed help us distinguish between likely explanations even when we haven't yet formulated those explanations. Also, I'm curious- do you really think that if we don't have a good explanation then we're free to imagine anything we want? That's an obvious error of reasoning that you would have tried to avoid if you were aware of it, yet it really seems to me that this is what you're doing. Would you like to go over that for a bit? Edit: I've edited this comment repeatedly to make it less contentious, like HN guidelines advice. I suggest we refrain from discussion of technicalities and avoid veering off into technical language, otherwise we'll just make this conversation even more tedious than it already is.
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    I explained to you what kind of epistemic tool the Razor is. There are plenty of other tools that let you make arguments about the likihood that there was an additional person present. You can't make that argument with that Razor. If you would like a more detailed understanding of why the Razor is limited to this use, you'll have to out more effort into learning epistemology than perusing wikipedia. It is an interesting topic and worth your time and attention. The sort version is that this is the only way to use the razor that increases the reliability of your epistemic process.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      See, when I said that we should refrain from discussion of technicalities, the reason was to avoid the tactic you're employing now, of trying to "win" the conversation by saying I don't understand the Razor etc. This is an underhanded tactic that does not honour you and demeans me as your interlocutor. You suggest I lack a detailed understanding of why the Razor is limited to a particular use. I pointed to wikipedia because it's a resource that is easy to access. According to wikipedia, then, the Razor says: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Do you disagree that this is the Razor?