Occam's Razor misapplied

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

traillius

Guest
Many secularists, atheists, etc, when they attempt to discredit religious or spiritual ideas, use Occam’s razor:

entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

Here are the misapplied reasons I have noted in the Occam Argument against anything supernatural or paranormal.
  1. The simplest explanation is always and only the only possible explanation.
  2. If Occam’s razor is insufficient, than the person holding the theory against the razor must be delusional
  3. reason and sensory experience are the only possible explanations, and if someone presents any other explanation, they are ignorant, delusional, or lying.
My view of the completeness of Occam’s philosophy is that
a) it is not intended to be exclusive of more complex explanations, only firstly exhaustive of less complex explanations.
b) Occam allowed for three sources of explanation:
  • reason
  • sensory experience
  • ‘that which is considered infallible’
    In Occam’s theist beliefs this included the scriptures, and religious teachings.
    Funny, many people use Occam, while excluding the third source.
 
traillius said:
Many secularists, atheists, etc, when they attempt to discredit religious or spiritual ideas, use Occam’s razor:

entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

Here are the misapplied reasons I have noted in the Occam Argument against anything supernatural or paranormal.
  1. The simplest explanation is always and only the only possible explanation.
  2. If Occam’s razor is insufficient, than the person holding the theory against the razor must be delusional
  3. reason and sensory experience are the only possible explanations, and if someone presents any other explanation, they are ignorant, delusional, or lying.
My view of the completeness of Occam’s philosophy is that
a) it is not intended to be exclusive of more complex explanations, only firstly exhaustive of less complex explanations.
b) Occam allowed for three sources of explanation:
  • reason
  • sensory experience
  • ‘that which is considered infallible’
    In Occam’s theist beliefs this included the scriptures, and religious teachings.
    Funny, many people use Occam, while excluding the third source.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. I agree.

I would also add that Occam, being a Nominalist, pretty much believed truth comes from our minds because, according to Nominalism, we assign meaning to reality and not the other way around. Truth is, in a sense, manufactured by our minds, they would say. Now, a key interest in manufacturing is efficiency, which involves using the simplest and most bare bones stuff to make the intended thing. Since Nominalism believes that minds manufacture truth/meaning, it would follow that truth must be made in the most efficient way possible … in the simplest way possible … hence, Occam’s razor.

However, if you reject Nominalism and believe that reality imposes meaning on minds and not the other way around (which is the Realist position), then Occam’s razor gets thrown out. There is no demand that the simplest explanation MUST be the only explanation because we are not talking about manufacturing our own truth. Reality exists apart from our minds, and as far as we know, it could exist in many complex ways that defy the simplest explanation.

I hope that made sense.
 
Cool. If the opposition could make a statement, without an ad hominem, I would be interested.
 
afraid, I guess, or perhaps have no other methods aside from ad hominem.
 
I’m an atheist, and I have no use for supernatural explanations, but I couldn’t agree more about Occam’s razor. It is one of the most misused and misunderstood philosophical notions around.

Especially by people who think it means, “The simplest solution is always right.” I’ve heard this argument to support the idea that there are no gods, one god, aliens making crop circles, ghosts, Sasquatch (Bigfoot), and people with psychic abilities. So many people seem to think it validates their opinion because they are unable to think of a more detailed or accurate solution to their problem. If we employed the “simplest it best” or “fewer is better” mantras, we would have to conclude that Stonehenge was created by a single giant until proven otherwise.
 
What could be more economical than the concept of one Supreme Being? The principle of parsimony (economy) is a valid criterion of a philosophical explanation but it is less important than other principles such as adequacy, intelligibility and fertility. Yet on all these counts theism is also the most cogent explanation of reality!
 
Sideline said:
You do realize that this is, in itself, and ad hominem attack don’t you?
Click to expand...
I refuse to go in an endless circle of ad hominems, even if I may have mistakenly engaged in one. However, if you would like to discuss the substance of my argument regarding Occam’s razor, itself, I will be happy to do that, as long as it is a discussion of merit, regarding actual ideas, and not what someone may or may not have done wrong. Please don’t indulge logical fallacies. And since you are reading this, please comment substantively on the argument presented in my original post.
 
entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)
Click to expand...
Where is that quoted from in his works?

The “Razor” is often misquoted; the true definition as thus;

“It is Futile to do with more things that which can be done with Fewer” - Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora (Summa Totius Logicae)

“Plurality must never be posited without Necessity” - *Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate *. (Quaestiones et Decisiones in Quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi)

That aside; you are correct.
My view of the completeness of Occam’s philosophy is that
a) it is not intended to be exclusive of more complex explanations, only firstly exhaustive of less complex explanations.
b) Occam allowed for three sources of explanation:
  • reason
  • sensory experience
  • ‘that which is considered infallible’
    In Occam’s theist beliefs this included the scriptures, and religious teachings.
    Funny, many people use Occam, while excluding the third source.
Click to expand...
Ockhams Razor is only a tiny part of his philosophy. In fact; in the “Quaestiones in Lib. I Physicorum, Q. Cxxxii-cxxxvi” he offers his own proof for the existence of God; in “Quodlibeta, III, Q.iii” he offers a discourse on God, foreknowlege and causality. In the “Summa totius logicae, I, C. xxxviii” he offers a discussion on quiddities and other “immatterial” things.

Clearly, Ockham was not an empiricist.

However; you mention “that which is considered infallible”; this evidently was not the case in practice; as he questioned the moral authority of the Church; and under persuasion from Michael of Cesena accused the Pope of being a Heretic.

The Completeness of Ockhams philosophy is a return to Nominalism, and the Rejection of the Realist teachings of Bl. Duns Scotus.

The simplist distillation of the Razor (it would be impossible to distill his whole philosophy here) would be to say this:

“Plurality must never be posited without Necessity” - Emphasis on Necessity; sometimes a plurality MUST be posited; but this should only happen when fewer does not suffice.
 
traillius said:
I refuse to go in an endless circle of ad hominems, even if I may have mistakenly engaged in one. However, if you would like to discuss the substance of my argument regarding Occam’s razor, itself, I will be happy to do that, as long as it is a discussion of merit, regarding actual ideas, and not what someone may or may not have done wrong. Please don’t indulge logical fallacies. And since you are reading this, please comment substantively on the argument presented in my original post.
Click to expand...
If you look post #5, you will see I did make make a substantive post.

By the way, I looked it up and I was wrong. Your post was not ad hominem; it was merely insulting for no reason. Ad hominem would be to link the character of the person to the argument. Neither of us actually did that.

I think you are being awfully snippy when you consider the facts of the situation. You made a completely unnecessary attack on people that disagree with you, and then you were called out on it. The mature response would be to admit that you were wrong and accept the rebuke.

If you would like to comment on my comment, you now know where to find it.
 
The insult, despite being unintentional, was nonetheless wrong.
I am sorry for being short. Please forgive me.

Now about your other post. It seems that many people will take the " simplest explanation is the best " position, when it comes to religion, etc… either because it allows them to stay in their comfort zone, philosophically speaking, or because the simplest solutions fit in better with their pre-existing world view. The former is intellectual laziness, the latter blind closemindedness. Both theists and atheists are guilty of both sometimes.
 
traillius said:
The insult, despite being unintentional, was nonetheless wrong.
I am sorry for being short. Please forgive me.
Click to expand...
Wow, you just really won my respect! Actually, re-won. I thought your original post was excellent.
Now about your other post. It seems that many people will take the " simplest explanation is the best " position, when it comes to religion, etc… either because it allows them to stay in their comfort zone, philosophically speaking, or because the simplest solutions fit in better with their pre-existing world view. The former is intellectual laziness, the latter blind closemindedness. Both theists and atheists are guilty of both sometimes.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t thought of it exactly that way, but I think you are right. I think those same people use the notion very selectively. When it supports their position, it is an immutable law; when it challenges their opinion, it is merely a guideline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top