What is Occam’s Razor? It is probably the single most accepted piece of guidance on how to decide what is the best explanation for something, which proof is the most accurate. There are various ways to explain the principle. Perhaps one of the most common non-philosopher ways to say it is that, “other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.” But, let me give you a fuller quote from the Wikipedia:
https://transculturalexchange.org/eberv9nemh1 The principle is often incorrectly summarized as “other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.” In practice, the application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers point out also that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.
https://www.clawscustomboxes.com/uq18pcapw Solomonoff’s inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam’s razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.
The principle actually has a long history both inside and outside Christianity. For instance, Ptolemy stated in the 1st century, “We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.” Saint Thomas Aquinas stated, “it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many.”
https://eloquentgushing.com/4nnasuu There are various caveats to this theory. For instance, as it is mentioned above, you look for the simplest explanation until and unless you arrive at such a point that a slightly more complex explanation actually let’s you explain better what you have observed. For instance, in cosmology, string theory is actually a more complex explanation or the universe than the previous explanation. In medicine, some of the explanations have turned out to be more complex than original explanations. In criminology, the reason family and friends are always the first to be considered during a murder investigation is because statistically they are the ones most often guilty. But, if someone is being “set up,” the more complex explanation may be the better one. In science there are some very clear examples in which the use of Occam’s Razor actually misled people into initially rejecting some discoveries such as DNA. So, Occam’s Razor does not prohibit complex explanations per se, but it does force all of us to think more logically by ensuring that we consider the simplest possible way to explain something.
https://foster2forever.com/2024/08/gixjjicl.html What does all this have to do with conspiracy theories? Well, almost inevitably every conspiracy theory is a long and complex explanation of events that can be more simply explained by other means. I was reading about the truthers, who claim–depending on which variation–that the destruction of the World Trade Center was actually a government plot. The reasoning necessary for that involves various steps, but the most difficult one is the involvement of dozens, maybe hundreds of people, who are able to keep a hermetic silence before, during, and after the events. In the same way, birthers have to suppose an entire range of events, which include the deliberate falsification of events by people in several states, in both public and private organizations, in foreign countries, and all without anyone breaking the hermetic silence. As some wag commented, these theories make the theories concerning President Kennedy and the grassy knoll positively simplistic.
But, this type of conspiracy thinking can also extend into the Church. For instance, dispensationalists are well known to engage in newspaper exegesis. Everytime they read the newspaper, they try to connect that to some prophecy or another of Scripture regardless of how tenuous the connections. Sadly, whenever we Christians get involved in this type of thinking, in building conspiracies theories that involve the almost impossible or the extremely complicated, we get ourselves into trouble.
I would go on, but this post is already long. What is the bottom line? Learn how to think carefully. Learn to look for the simplest explanation. And, if an explanation seems almost incredible, it probably is.
https://mandikaye.com/blog/iov0jmmzcl WenatcheeTheHatchet says
https://nedediciones.com/uncategorized/2rhvv50n
The version of Occam’s Razor I recall was that one should not add or multiply causes without necessity. A way this concept got explained to me by a history teacher, partly in jest, was that we should not presuppose a conspiracy to explain events that are explicable by imcompetence.
https://inteligencialimite.org/2024/08/07/uh95n72tn6o Fr. Ernesto Obregon says
https://eloquentgushing.com/bun0lqj8
https://solomedicalsupply.com/2024/08/07/z8hczw1wvbu Yes, throughout history this principle has been summarized in any of several ways. And, as long as one realizes that this is a principle of logic, and not a rule, it works. In passing, what you were taught is very close to what Peter Lombard said in trying to summarize Occam. But, the actual thought has been expressed by ancient philosophers as diverse as Aristotle and Ptolemy.
Alprazolam Rx Online However, we must be cautious in how the principle is applied. Various scholars have come up with anti-Occam razor statements to balance out the tendency to over-apply this principle. After all, snowflakes are not exactly the simplest things around.
https://merangue.com/l7mzanww William Gall says
https://aiohealthpro.com/dlb291y
https://www.completerehabsolutions.com/blog/jgmavkt Well, yes, this is logical. But empirical data can trump the simpler explanations, such as the presence of materials in the WTC debris which indicate a substance specifically used in large scale demolition. And the fact that hundreds of architectural engineers are questioning the simple explanation.
Fr. Ernesto Obregon says
https://mandikaye.com/blog/bzv2we85rq
https://udaan.org/w0jr38k6.php I would recommend this article http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_theory_a_decade_later/ by the committee for skeptical inquiry.
Headless Unicorn Guy says
Purchase Alprazolam 2Mg
However, since it denies The Conspiracy, it must be part of The Conspiracy.
The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.
Order Xanax Online From Mexico Bill Gall says
https://inteligencialimite.org/2024/08/07/e8od36k9rjb
Not being a scientist, I see at this site an answer to the claims that seemed so credible to me, and lack the knowledge to judge between the two opposing viewpoints. And I see that this is where Occam’s Razor comes in.
https://homeupgradespecialist.com/3alojani48d Headless Unicorn Guy says
https://www.psicologialaboral.net/2024/08/07/crs7csclf7w Once Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory comes into play, it is literally impossible to disprove — or even to shake it. Because any and all evidence against The Conspiracy is disinformation planted by The Conspiracy. Because anyone who doesn’t believe in The Conspiracy must be part of The Conspiracy. Because lack of evidence for The Conspiracy is proof of The Conspiracy being so Vast They Can Silence Anyone.
Buy Alprazolam Powder Online “If your Conspiracy Theory doesn’f fit the facts, Invent a Bigger Conspiracy.”
— Kooks Magazine
https://solomedicalsupply.com/2024/08/07/hgidifhzio “The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs! We Won’t Be Taken In!”
— C.S.Lewis, https://www.completerehabsolutions.com/blog/9nsv776 Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle
James says
https://foster2forever.com/2024/08/cabywxj.html The version of Occam’s Razor I find easiest to apply is that the addition of an assumption that does not better explain the outcome should be rejected. For instance if you come outside after a storm to find a tree felled it could be explained that the tree was hit by lightning. Or it could be explained by a passing UFO being hit by lightning, colliding with the tree and then flying off. The second explanation adds an assumption (the existence of the UFO) without better explaining the outcome. The second version may be correct but through the additional assumption is less likely.