3 ms·
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 ad
by 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 agoSee, 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?
- shkkmo 6y agoI wasn't trying to win, I was trying to offer you an honest suggestion. You do lack an understanding of Occam's Razor and I encourage you to go learn more about it. It simply cannot be used to rule out explanations like you are saying. It only provides a heuristic preference between explanations that make identical predictions. Occam's Razor is an epistemic guideline that was originally formulated in the terms you specify, it is however a concept that has been widely discussed and refined beyond that original formulation. If you aren't interested in going past reading on wikipedia, the article there does touch on the Razor's limitations even if it doesn't delve deeply into the reasoning behind them.
- shkkmo 6y agoEven if you stretch Occam's Razor past it's limit and use it to establish preference between two theories that make different predictions but only about phenomenon that you personally can't practically check (i.e. a case such as this one), then you are still only establishing a preference for the "simpler" explanation and cannot actually rule out the other explanation without checking the difference in predictions (i.e. an investigation into the crash.)
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoSo, to clarify, you disagree that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" is the Razor?