3 ms·
I 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 abou
by shkkmo 6y ago
I 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?