4 ms·
If Occam's razor is presented as a truth (which is pretty subjective, as it depends on what we/someone considers "simple"). Then finding one case where what mos
by cies 4y ago
If Occam's razor is presented as a truth (which is pretty subjective, as it depends on what we/someone considers "simple"). Then finding one case where what most people thought was the simple reason, was not actually the reason after evidence came to light, then Occam's razor can be rejected as a theory right?
I think this has long happened, and do not understand why this is still presented as "truth".
I prefer the standard of truth used by natural-sciences. The rest I find pretty bendable (virology included).
- naasking 4y ago> If Occam's razor is presented as a truth (which is pretty subjective, as it depends on what we/someone considers "simple"). It doesn't though. Firstly, Occam's razor is not about simplicity but about "parsimony". Parsimony is calculated in information theory via Kolmogorov complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity This then lets us describe how to do induction so it provably converges in the fastest way possible, Solomonoff Induction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_inductive_inference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc... Arguably, this can be seen as a formalization of the scientific process.
- mistermann 4y ago> It doesn't though. Firstly, Occam's razor is not about simplicity but about "parsimony". Parsimony is calculated in information theory via Kolmogorov complexity In theory perhaps, but in practice it is firstly calculated by the mind of the person who plays the Occam's Razor card, and then subsequently by people who ingest the claim, and typically all participants are performing their calculations using biased heuristics and flawed logic, and have negative interest in what is actually true, or if truth is even reachable.