History Main / OccamsRazor

24th Dec '16 3:15:15 PM AnonFangeekGirl
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Occam's Razor is the bane of {{Conspiracy Theorist}}s everywhere for the same reason: take a look at the Apollo moon landings, which a good percentage, in the single figures, [[MoonLandingHoax believe was hoaxed]]. Often people will find "evidence" that the landings could never have taken place, but it rests on the arguments that the US government:

to:

Occam's Razor is the bane of {{Conspiracy Theorist}}s everywhere for the same reason: take everywhere, since conspiracies usually rest on a look at lot of shaky assumptions. For example, the Apollo moon landings, which a good percentage, in percentage (in the single figures, figures) [[MoonLandingHoax believe was hoaxed]]. Often people will find "evidence" that the landings could never have taken place, but it rests on the arguments that the US government:
23rd Dec '16 11:35:19 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "''The simplest theory is the best.''" or, even worse, "''The simplest theory is always right.''" This is not correct in RealLife unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that ''all the data are accounted for.'' Newtonian physics are simpler than modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but (with all due respect to the man) [[UsefulNotes/IsaacNewton Sir Isaac]] simply could not explain ''all'' the data eventually collected--especially since a lot of the offending material had not ''been'' collected when ''Principia Mathematica'' was published. This required some other smart man--namely, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein--to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous stew we call "UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}" which functions along completely different rules. It should, however, be noted that since Einsteinian physics make very little difference to results at macroscopic scales or with objects travelling at non-relativistic speeds (and often the difference they do make is so small as to amount to false precision based on the initial variables), the Razor would still support using the Newtonian equations for such calculations, which is why we do so.

to:

The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "''The simplest theory is the best.''" or, even worse, "''The simplest theory is always right.''" This is not correct in RealLife unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that ''all the data are accounted for.'' Newtonian physics are simpler than modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but (with all due respect to the man) [[UsefulNotes/IsaacNewton Sir Isaac]] simply could not explain ''all'' the data eventually collected--especially since a lot of the offending material had not ''been'' collected when ''Principia Mathematica'' was published. This required some other smart man--namely, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein--to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous stew we call "UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}" which functions along completely different rules."UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}". It should, however, be noted that since Einsteinian physics make very little difference to results at macroscopic scales or with objects travelling at non-relativistic speeds (and often the difference they do make is so small as to amount to false precision based on the initial variables), the Razor would still support using the Newtonian equations for such calculations, which is why we do so.
23rd Dec '16 11:32:59 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "''The simplest theory is the best.''" or, even worse, "''The simplest theory is always right.''" This is not correct in RealLife unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that ''all the data are accounted for.'' Newtonian physics are simpler than modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but (with all due respect to the man) [[UsefulNotes/IsaacNewton Sir Isaac]] simply could not explain ''all'' the data eventually collected--especially since a lot of the offending material had not ''been'' collected when ''Principia Mathematica'' was published. This required some other smart man--namely, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein--to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous stew we call "UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}" which functions along completely different rules. Now, Occam's Razor would suggest that there must be some Grand Unified Theory that explains why physics work one way on an atomic level and completely differently on a larger-than-atomic level. Much of the last century of scientific research (including Einstein's) has centered around trying to come up with one. They haven't succeeded. So far, Occam's Razor is wrong, and the universe simply functions according to completely different sets of rules depending on an object's physical size, for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody likes this, but in the end, nothing says that an explanation must ''be'' simple.

to:

The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "''The simplest theory is the best.''" or, even worse, "''The simplest theory is always right.''" This is not correct in RealLife unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that ''all the data are accounted for.'' Newtonian physics are simpler than modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but (with all due respect to the man) [[UsefulNotes/IsaacNewton Sir Isaac]] simply could not explain ''all'' the data eventually collected--especially since a lot of the offending material had not ''been'' collected when ''Principia Mathematica'' was published. This required some other smart man--namely, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein--to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous stew we call "UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}" which functions along completely different rules. Now, Occam's It should, however, be noted that since Einsteinian physics make very little difference to results at macroscopic scales or with objects travelling at non-relativistic speeds (and often the difference they do make is so small as to amount to false precision based on the initial variables), the Razor would suggest that there must be some Grand Unified Theory that explains still support using the Newtonian equations for such calculations, which is why physics work one way on an atomic level and completely differently on a larger-than-atomic level. Much of the last century of scientific research (including Einstein's) has centered around trying to come up with one. They haven't succeeded. So far, Occam's Razor is wrong, and the universe simply functions according to completely different sets of rules depending on an object's physical size, for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody likes this, but in the end, nothing says that an explanation must ''be'' simple.
we do so.
22nd Dec '16 4:01:42 AM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message


# they would [[{{Troll}} waste time building pyramids]].

to:

# they would [[{{Troll}} waste time building pyramids]].
pyramids.
22nd Dec '16 3:59:58 AM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message


'''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor]]''' is an epistemological razor[[note]]a logical principle that is used in deductive reasoning to evaluate threories[[/note]] first described in the 14th century by [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan friar and philosopher. It is often used to evaluate the usefulness of a theory. Its main tenet is that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." It can be summed up with the phrase "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

to:

'''[[http://en.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Occam's Razor]]''' Razor]] is an epistemological razor[[note]]a logical principle that is used in deductive reasoning to evaluate threories[[/note]] first described in the 14th century by [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham William of Ockham]], an English Franciscan friar and philosopher. It is often used to evaluate the usefulness of a theory. Its main tenet is that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." It can be summed up with the phrase "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."
27th Oct '16 10:07:15 PM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Occam's Razor is the bane of {{Conspiracy Theorist}}s everywhere for the same reason: take a look at the Apollo moon landings, which a good percentage, in the single figures, believe was hoaxed. Often people will find "evidence" that the landings could never have taken place, but it rests on the arguments that the US government:

to:

Occam's Razor is the bane of {{Conspiracy Theorist}}s everywhere for the same reason: take a look at the Apollo moon landings, which a good percentage, in the single figures, [[MoonLandingHoax believe was hoaxed.hoaxed]]. Often people will find "evidence" that the landings could never have taken place, but it rests on the arguments that the US government:
27th Oct '16 6:37:16 AM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


# and either persuaded the Soviets to destroy every record of the deal so thoroughly that no trace of it remains in now-declassified Soviet archives, even though the Soviets had never bothered to do anything of the sort before ([[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp on the grounds that their country would endure until the end of human history and said archives would never be seen by hostile eyes]]), or have since bought the silence of TheNewRussia as well.

to:

# and either persuaded the Soviets to destroy every record of the deal so thoroughly that no trace of it remains in now-declassified Soviet archives, even though the Soviets had never bothered to do anything of the sort before ([[TheGreatPoliticsMessUp on the grounds that their country would endure until the end of human history and said archives would never be seen by hostile eyes]]), or have since bought the silence of TheNewRussia UsefulNotes/TheNewRussia as well.



The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "''The simplest theory is the best.''" or, even worse, "''The simplest theory is always right.''" This is not correct in RealLife unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that ''all the data are accounted for.'' Newtonian physics are simpler than modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but (with all due respect to the man) [[IsaacNewton Sir Isaac]] simply could not explain ''all'' the data eventually collected--especially since a lot of the offending material had not ''been'' collected when ''Principia Mathematica'' was published. This required some other smart man--namely, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein--to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous stew we call "UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}" which functions along completely different rules. Now, Occam's Razor would suggest that there must be some Grand Unified Theory that explains why physics work one way on an atomic level and completely differently on a larger-than-atomic level. Much of the last century of scientific research (including Einstein's) has centered around trying to come up with one. They haven't succeeded. So far, Occam's Razor is wrong, and the universe simply functions according to completely different sets of rules depending on an object's physical size, for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody likes this, but in the end, nothing says that an explanation must ''be'' simple.

to:

The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "''The simplest theory is the best.''" or, even worse, "''The simplest theory is always right.''" This is not correct in RealLife unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that ''all the data are accounted for.'' Newtonian physics are simpler than modern theories and were sufficient to take man to the Moon, but (with all due respect to the man) [[IsaacNewton [[UsefulNotes/IsaacNewton Sir Isaac]] simply could not explain ''all'' the data eventually collected--especially since a lot of the offending material had not ''been'' collected when ''Principia Mathematica'' was published. This required some other smart man--namely, UsefulNotes/AlbertEinstein--to formulate more complex theories, particularly the outrageous stew we call "UsefulNotes/{{Relativity}}" which functions along completely different rules. Now, Occam's Razor would suggest that there must be some Grand Unified Theory that explains why physics work one way on an atomic level and completely differently on a larger-than-atomic level. Much of the last century of scientific research (including Einstein's) has centered around trying to come up with one. They haven't succeeded. So far, Occam's Razor is wrong, and the universe simply functions according to completely different sets of rules depending on an object's physical size, for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody likes this, but in the end, nothing says that an explanation must ''be'' simple.
17th Oct '16 4:32:00 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


# they are intelligent [[note]]Less likely. [[FermiParadox While life may be common,]] human-level or above intelligence may not.[[/note]]

to:

# they are intelligent [[note]]Less likely. [[FermiParadox [[UsefulNotes/FermiParadox While life may be common,]] human-level or above intelligence may not.[[/note]]
26th Sep '16 5:51:31 AM Crimzonkat
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Another very common mistake is to summon up the Razor in a debate over a point that is entirely moot in order to add weight to a particular argument. This usage is entirely fallacious as the Razor does nothing more than recommend the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It is not a magical tool that points to the right answer. In a lab it will be used hundreds or thousands of times, with each and every one of the chosen hypothesis being rigorously tested, before a correct answer is found. In a debate the Razor will be used ''once'' and will, invariably, choose the user's answer as the 'right' one. Funny, that. Another problem thrown up in such situations is the scramble to determine whose theory is simplest and thus which one "benefits" from the application of the Razor. Unfortunately, thinking that Occam's Razor is a magic tool for finding the right answer is not restricted to online debates, it is also an altogether too common reason for medical misdiagnosis. While not every condition is worthy of [[LiveActionTV/{{House}} Dr. House]] (who actually declared Occam's Razor to be a fallacy), doctors have something of a tendency to default to the most likely diagnosis and may ignore evidence to the contrary, particularly if they are tired or busy. This means that doctors sometimes refuse to diagnose, or even look for, diseases such as meningitis, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9972574/Five-year-old-girl-died-from-meningitis-after-doctor-said-hospital-was-waste-of-time.html sometimes]] with [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9692169/Parents-win-five-figure-sum-after-hospital-failed-to-spot-babys-meningitis.html deadly results]].

to:

Another very common mistake is to summon up the Razor in a debate over a point that is entirely moot in order to add weight to a particular argument. This usage is entirely fallacious as the Razor does nothing more than recommend the hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions. It is not a magical tool that points to the right answer. In a lab it will be used hundreds or thousands of times, with each and every one of the chosen hypothesis being rigorously tested, before a correct answer is found. In a debate the Razor will be used ''once'' and will, invariably, choose the user's answer as the 'right' one. Funny, that. Another problem thrown up in such situations is the scramble to determine whose theory is simplest and thus which one "benefits" from the application of the Razor. Unfortunately, thinking that Occam's Razor is a magic tool for finding the right answer is not restricted to online debates, it is also an altogether too common reason for medical misdiagnosis. While not every condition is worthy of [[LiveActionTV/{{House}} [[Series/{{House}} Dr. House]] (who actually declared Occam's Razor to be a fallacy), doctors have something of a tendency to default to the most likely diagnosis and may ignore evidence to the contrary, particularly if they are tired or busy. This means that doctors sometimes refuse to diagnose, or even look for, diseases such as meningitis, [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9972574/Five-year-old-girl-died-from-meningitis-after-doctor-said-hospital-was-waste-of-time.html sometimes]] with [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9692169/Parents-win-five-figure-sum-after-hospital-failed-to-spot-babys-meningitis.html deadly results]].
30th Aug '16 3:16:59 PM Hadjorim
Is there an issue? Send a Message


# had the technological and film-making ability to actually fake the moon-landing footage[[note]]This seems logical - after all, surely it would be easier to fake some film than actually ''go to the Moon'' - but it relies on comparing two totally different fields. In fact, the technology to fake the moon landings ''[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU did not exist]]'' in 1969, whilst the technology to actually go there and shoot some footage did.[[/note]];

to:

# had the technological and film-making ability to actually fake the moon-landing footage[[note]]This footage[[note]]At first this seems logical - after to make sense. After all, surely it would must be easier to fake ''fake'' some film of something rather than actually ''go to film the Moon'' - thing itself; but it faking footage relies on comparing two a totally different fields.field of technology. In fact, the technology to fake the moon landings ''[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU did not exist]]'' in 1969, whilst the technology to actually go there and shoot some footage did.[[/note]];
This list shows the last 10 events of 138. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.OccamsRazor