RE: Trying (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Trying (12/7/2011 8:56:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

If on the other hand you consider Occam's Razor some sort of law that proves the simpler theory true so strongly that it has to be proven false before you can reject it...


then he doesnt understand Occam's Razor. Occam's actual proposition is so trivial that it doesnt deserve the longevity its had.



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/7/2011 8:57:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Who would for a moment think that I was claiming that good cheer and giving didn't exist? Seriously, what kind of complete idiocy would it take to so fundamentally misinterpret every term in my sentence.

Probably that would be someone who was trying to point out one of the failed parallels in your claim to be saying, "there is no God," in the same sense as you say, "there is no Santa Claus."

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

"Theism..."

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Most of the dictionaries I consulted do not include conceiving of God as personal deity as a necessary component of theism.

Belief in a god or gods ~MacMillan
Belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world ~Merriam-Webster
The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism)... Belief in the existence of a god or gods ~Dictionary.com

So just to be clear, your emphasis suggests that you are talking about a specific form of theism, and hence a specific conception of God. In other words, saying "this God doesn't exist," rather than, "there is no God." But, if you don't specify, why should anyone assume that you don't mean "God" by any definition? I don't know of anyone who thinks Atheism claims that only a certain God, or a God conceived in a certain way, doesn't exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

You have to interpret them so figuratively that there's nothing theistic left in order to claim that they are true. Which is fine, I'll certain acknowledge that God exists as a fictional character....

Well, Santa Claus is a fictional character who nonetheless represents something real. Reading a religious text literally invariably results in a similarly fictional character. But proving that this fictional character doesn't exist gets you no farther than proving that the fictional character Santa Claus doesn't exist. Or to put it in your words, "what kind of idiot?"

Your claim, that interpreting a religious text "so figuratively" results in there being "nothing theistic left," states precisely the opposite of the truth. Religious texts are necessarily symbolic. It is interpreting them literally that results in there being "nothing theistic left," or nothing but theism's empty shell. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be faced with the embarrassing situation of being unable to detect any significant difference between a religion and a parody of one like Pastafarianism.

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/8/2011 12:04:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Im sorry did I give you the slightest inkling that I care what you find appropriate? you do not tell me how or what to post EVER .........do you understand?
And leave off the patronizing. It makes you look like you have a LARGE self esteem issue.

Well, you are wrong, sorry - I, as anybody, can tell you what or what not to post WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT, and you can do nothing to prevent me from doing it. Apparently you have a problem with the concept of freedom of speech. I recommend that you consult a specialist.

Plus, dear, I can also tell you exactly what to do if you want to be ABLE to transmit me a message from a third party quoting it. Because, I also have the freedom to hide you. Therefore, now I decide, because I want and I can decide it, that you will not quote anybody else with the effect of me reading it.

Because I hide you.

If you participate in a forum, I recommend you that you check exactly what other can and can't do. As for now, you are doing it terribly wrong and making many mistakes. I also recommend you to grow up and learn about what freedom of speech means.

Have a nice day.

PS to everybody.

I really have to laugh every time some poor guy/gal shouts me "Do not tell me what to do!!!". Because, of course, in that moment they are telling me what to do. They never realise the contradiction. But sooner or later most of them simply grow up.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/8/2011 12:14:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I get that you're giving me the short version of things I'm not faulting you on that.

Thing is solipsism does explain how you're perceiving what you perceive by claiming that it's a dream or hallucination created by your subconscious. Now if you just consider Occam's Razor to be a general guideline designed to steer scientists away from needlessly overcomplicated theories, then it's no big deal. All the evidence that we have leads us toward the conclusion that reality is real and none of it leads us toward the conclusion that reality is not real so we'll go with reality being real. If on the other hand you consider Occam's Razor some sort of law that proves the simpler theory true so strongly that it has to be proven false before you can reject it then you're stuck considering solipsism true until you can prove that it's false. And seeing as it's the ultimate conspiracy theory and can't be proven false, well....you're fucked.


I guess that this message was for me, GotSteel. Please write my alias somewhere next time.

"Thing is solipsism does explain how you're perceiving what you perceive by claiming that it's a dream or hallucination created by your subconscious"

No, that is not an explanation, because it does not explain why the dream / hallucination takes exactly the form it takes. I am sorry but also "explanation" is here a very concrete word.

Therefore, the rest of your message is wrong. I am not stuck with Solipism.

I also do not consider it "some sort of law that proves the simpler theory true so strongly that it has to be proven false before you can reject it". There are other ways to disable a proof made though Occam's Razor. Notably, presenting an alternative which explains more facts. That makes Occam's Razor useless.

But again, if you think enough, you will find a case where the simplified version of Occam's Razor does not work. I already concede this and I simply must state that the complete version is too complex for this forum and this thread. I will only here try to make clear that Solipism alone is not proved by Occam's Razor, not that you can't find a different irrational example.

It is now complicated for me to formulate all this in a simple way. I will try, still.
1. As stated in the formulation, Occam's Razor is only usable between hypothesis, which explain the same amount of facts.
2. Solipism alone does not explain the same amount of facts as the hypothesis of a real universe. It does not explain why the hallucination has the form it has. Therefore, it does not explain the concrete perceptions.
3. Occam's Razor has a specific form. You know the formulation. This formulation establishes clear limits. Outside this limits, Occam's Razor cannot be used.
4. Therefore, any situation which breaks this limits, renders a prove by Occam's Razor invalid.
5. Your prove of Solipism breaks one of this limits and still uses Occam's Razor. Therefore, it is invalid.


PS: Trying to find a way to express Occam's Razor shortly but more exactly... I should mention the amount of information under a brute-fact hypothesis, and the amount and entity of the information covered by H1 / H2 compared to H0 (no hypothesis)... something along these lines...



Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/8/2011 4:19:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Well I do generally take pains to define the terms in use before I make a statement like that and I still get heckled by some agnostics. Like I said if somebody is trying to misunderstand hard enough they will find a way to manage.

Thing is I don't think someone should need to put a dozen disclaimers and caveats before the statement there is no God.


Well, if there's heckling and (possibly intentional) misunderstanding whenever the statement is made, perhaps a few clarifying statements might be necessary after all.

It doesn't have to have "a dozen disclaimers and caveats." It might just be a matter of adding an extra word or two, such as "There probably is no God." That's just one extra word.

quote:


We certainly don't need to when it comes to faeries unicorns or Santa Claus. Sure one can come up with uncommon alternate definitions for Santa but we get that people are generally talking about the really really common definition and will tell us through the context if they are not.


Well, again, as we've discussed, I would probably use different phraseology myself.

quote:


So the question is why doesn't the same thing happen with God?


Because "God" is a more complex question than Santa Claus. As I mentioned previously, we only need to go back 100-150 years to look at the art and literature upon which the modern legends of Santa Claus are based. With "God," we need to go back thousands of years (perhaps even millions or billions of years) and examine far more complex issues than whether there's some fat guy in a red suit living at the North Pole.

quote:


Were you genuinely under the misconception that Spanish was claiming that the laws of physics didn't exist when he said there is no God? If not why would you even bring that up?


I thought it was possible that that's what he might have meant. I was asking for clarification, because I thought he was being deliberately evasive. He tried to make it as simple as "2+2=4," so I was just trying to ask if that's what he really meant.

Moreover, if he's going to challenge agnostics with some kind of bogus "question game," why shouldn't he be expected to do his homework ahead of time? You can't play the "you know what he meant" card in a game like that, especially one that purports to be based on "pure logic."

This would be just as true in both cases, whether asking about Santa Claus or God. At the very least, I would expect someone to at least have a cursory knowledge of what they're talking about before initiating a discussion on the subject.

quote:


I can certainly understand why some theists go for obscurantism instead of trying to defend the belief that they actually hold. But why do some agnostics head in that same direction?


I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my question to you would be: Why do you say "there is no god" and then complain that people misinterpreted what you meant? What is your objection to adding a few extra words for greater clarity in language?



Zonie63 -> RE: Agnosticism (12/8/2011 5:40:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
In the sense that they're reacting against organized religion, I do get it. That's pretty much what I had figured from the beginning, but it's also for that same reason that I questioned the phraseology.

It's not about organized religion, or at least it's not just about organized religion. Belief in a celestial Santa doesn't become more reasonable simply because it's disorganized.


Perhaps, although I would think there might be similar reasons for opposing belief in Santa Claus, such as commercialization and excessive consumerism. The retail industry looks pretty organized to me.


quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
But that's also why it's more of a political statement, not something derived from "pure logic," as Spanish was trying to demonstrate. It's not a statement based on science or logic; it's just political rhetoric. Wouldn't you agree?


ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Well there's clearly a political motivation for atheists to come out of the closet and express their positions. If there wasn't a strong christian nationalism movement I suspect that you'd hear about as much from atheists as you do from aunicornists. I'm also still not quite sure about all of what Spanish was trying to demonstrate though I do agree with him that statements about God get treated in a special way. That said no I don't agree with you. In the same sense that Santa is a job description, that once you determine that the presents you're receiving are actually coming from your Grandma you can refute the Santa claim and say that there is no Santa. In that same sense we can look at the theistic claim of God, not some metaphorical claim of God (hence the term a-theists not a-metaphorists) and test to see if this sort of thing is actually happening:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
 This is particularly true when they say things like "God loves you" and "God has a plan for you," implying that God is micromanaging day-to-day affairs here on Earth.


Well, sure, that was one of my earlier points. You can take specific claims and test them in this manner. It's a far easier exercise to take someone else's claims and rip them to shreds, but there's only so far that one can go with that.

Keep in mind that my only real issue is with positive atheism which takes the extra (and unnecessary) step of coming out and saying "there is no God." That just complicates the overall debate far more than is really necessary (especially if the motive is to counter "Christian nationalism," as you call it).

I think that strict adherence to the principle of the Separation of Church and State would deal with most of the practical issues involved, at least as far as religionists imposing their will on others. That's a perfectly valid political and constitutional issue, one that I support. Even many religionists support it as much for their own protection as anything else (as well as the tax exemptions they enjoy). Smaller religions also have an interest in being protected from the larger religions which might tend to impose their will on others, so the Separation of Church and State protects religious interests as well as secular interests.

The thing that I disagree with both you and Spanish is that you're saying that God gets treated in some special way, when I don't really see that as being the case.

I've explained several times that I probably wouldn't come out and say "there is no Santa." Not like that anyway. (Besides, Santa is different because the mythology only covers a certain part of the year on certain parts of the planet, whereas "God" covers the entire existence of the universe and its origins. A far bigger, more complex topic and therefore should be treated differently.)

Where Spanish Mat Master's argument fell apart was when he said that the statement "I have a nose" is an automatic implied denial of Azonier. In his view, it was not even necessary for me to say "There is no Azonier" in that context, since all that would be necessary was for me to conclude that I have a nose and that would be the end of it.

So, if that's the case, then we really don't have to say "There is no God," do we? You're saying that God gets treated differently, in some special way, when that's really not the case at all. In fact, I even asked Spanish Mat Master, point blank, what positive statement could I make, equivalent to "I have a nose," which would serve the same purpose of implicitly denying the existence of God without actually having to say it. That's when he started saying "Fuck you" to me. So, even Spanish Mat Master was treating God differently than he was treating Azonier, since he couldn't come up with a mundane statement equivalent to "I have a nose" which would implicitly deny the existence of God.





GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/8/2011 2:10:38 PM)

You keep trying to pretend that I'm a Biblical literalist, I'm not. However, the word exist is an exception. Theism is founded on the idea of God literally existing. Nobody bothers praying to a god who doesn't literally exist, there would be no point.

Now, I get that you've been profoundly unable to grasp how the terms God and exist are actually used in theism so I just highlighted the portion of the wiki that might actually sink in. Your definitions work just as well so long as you can grasp that they actually mean the terms god and existence when they use them. If you actually look at your definitions you should note that they are claiming the literal existence of a supernatural being and that said being is doing stuff.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Belief in a god or gods ~MacMillan
Belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world ~Merriam-Webster
The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism)... Belief in the existence of a god or gods ~Dictionary.com



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/8/2011 5:28:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
2. Solipism alone does not explain the same amount of facts as the hypothesis of a real universe. It does not explain why the hallucination has the form it has.


With Solipsism that's trivially explained, this is just what you happen to be hallucinating at the moment. On the other hand the theory that reality is real doesn't explain why reality has the form it has. Therefore, your message is wrong. sorry but your stuck with Solipism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
There are other ways to disable a proof made though Occam's Razor.

Can you find a source that says Occam's Razor makes proofs because everything I've learned about it tells me that it doesn't work that way. The rest of us seem to be in unanimous agreement about that.

P.S. look at the lower right corner of the post, you'll see: "(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)". That's how you know that I'm replying to you.



GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/8/2011 5:34:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Perhaps, although I would think there might be similar reasons for opposing belief in Santa Claus, such as commercialization and excessive consumerism. The retail industry looks pretty organized to me.


The phrase "celestial Santa" was figurative language meaning God. I wasn't taking a position on consumerism of advertising.



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/8/2011 8:52:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Theism is founded on the idea of God literally existing... you've been profoundly unable to grasp how the terms God and exist are actually used in theism

In Theism, to "exist" means to be; to be real, not imaginary.

To have actual being; be real ~American Heritage
To have real being whether material or spiritual ~Merriam-Webster
To be, or to be real ~Cambridge
To have being or reality; to be ~Collins

K.



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/8/2011 11:01:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

The thing that I disagree with both you and Spanish is that you're saying that God gets treated in some special way

It looks like a case of projection, to me.

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 1:54:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
2. Solipism alone does not explain the same amount of facts as the hypothesis of a real universe. It does not explain why the hallucination has the form it has.
With Solipsism that's trivially explained, this is just what you happen to be hallucinating at the moment

Ok, I will repeat this once more. If you don't understand it, I give up.
No, Solipism does not explain any concrete perception, because it does not explain why you get exactly that hallucination and not any other possible hallucination.
quote:

On the other hand the theory that reality is real doesn't explain why reality has the form it has

The hypothesis that reality exists allows me to search for more answers, find them, and explain many current, concrete perceptions. For example, I see a screen now because there is a screen, because I bought it, etc, etc, etc.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Can you find a source that says Occam's Razor makes proofs because everything I've learned about it tells me that it doesn't work that way. The rest of us seem to be in unanimous agreement about that.
Maybe I could but I really do not care much. If it is not a proof, you cannot say that you have a nose. So, it is a proof. I have defended that myself and I have no need to find any other authority.
quote:

P.S. look at the lower right corner of the post, you'll see: "(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)". That's how you know that I'm replying to you.
Sorry, but I won't. First, because many people (including myself) click on "reply" to a different post (for example when it is confortable to do so). Second because it is tiny and hard to find. I will not scan all the messages I see looking for a "in reply to SpanishMatMaster", sorry.

So, please, write my alias in the header of the posting or quote me with the name on it.

Best regards.



Kirata -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 3:58:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

Can you find a source that says Occam's Razor makes proofs because everything I've learned about it tells me that it doesn't work that way. The rest of us seem to be in unanimous agreement about that.

Maybe I could but I really do not care much. If it is not a proof, you cannot say that you have a nose. So, it is a proof. I have defended that myself and I have no need to find any other authority.

I think that puts everything in perspective rather nicely. [:D]

K.



Azonier -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 5:20:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Im sorry did I give you the slightest inkling that I care what you find appropriate? you do not tell me how or what to post EVER .........do you understand?
And leave off the patronizing. It makes you look like you have a LARGE self esteem issue.

Well, you are wrong, sorry - I, as anybody, can tell you what or what not to post WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT, and you can do nothing to prevent me from doing it. Apparently you have a problem with the concept of freedom of speech. I recommend that you consult a specialist.

Plus, dear, I can also tell you exactly what to do if you want to be ABLE to transmit me a message from a third party quoting it. Because, I also have the freedom to hide you. Therefore, now I decide, because I want and I can decide it, that you will not quote anybody else with the effect of me reading it.




So the hat master told LL not to publish something and then goes on to talk about freedom of speech.
You humans are an odd bunch.



Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 5:26:13 AM)

Azonier , oh wrinkly old puss almighty one.
His first mistake was believing I would enable him to take me to task after I wrote what I did.

I can indeed tell him what I will allow him to affect or even effect, which is a big fat zero. If I could give a damn.. I still wouldnt:)
gives you some Supreme Cat nip.




Azonier -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 6:07:23 AM)

~Purrrs~
You do realize this won't prevent me from taking your nose?
Nothing personal, but it's what I do.
~rolls in the catnip and scampers away~



Lucylastic -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 6:15:48 AM)

yeah yeah, just dont leave it nostrils up in the rain please!!![:D]



GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/9/2011 6:40:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
In Theism, to "exist" means to be; to be real, not imaginary.


Yep, that's what I'm talking about[sm=applause.gif]

Every time I've seen you actually translate a passage you've ended up with imaginary beings conveying a figurative message that was meaningful to you. Let me refresh your memory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Now if you want to interpret these various events in the life of Jesus as fictitious, in this case that: there was no actual fig tree, the event never actually took place, it's just an inspirational story of some sort. Maybe this story means that a positive attitude will improve your life or some such thing. That's fine, the only problem I see with that is it makes the god in those stories equally fictitious.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I fail to see the "problem" in there being no Super Jinn up in the sky standing ready at mankind's beck and call to remove plant life, rearrange geography, and generally grant wishes upon request. But that said, it seems to me that our belief in our ability to do things once thought impossible is what has brought us to being able to do many of them today. And it is certainly true that not believing we could do them wouldn't have gotten us there.



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/9/2011 7:01:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL:In Theism, to "exist" means to be; to be real, not imaginary.

Yep, that's what I'm talking about

I assure you that is not what someone drawing an analogy between God and Santa Claus is talking about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Every time I've seen you actually translate a passage you've ended up with imaginary beings conveying a figurative message that was meaningful to you.

Not at all. That's just how it pleases you to see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Let me refresh your memory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Now if you want to interpret these various events in the life of Jesus as fictitious, in this case that: there was no actual fig tree, the event never actually took place, it's just an inspirational story of some sort. Maybe this story means that a positive attitude will improve your life or some such thing. That's fine, the only problem I see with that is it makes the god in those stories equally fictitious.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I fail to see the "problem" in there being no Super Jinn up in the sky standing ready at mankind's beck and call to remove plant life, rearrange geography, and generally grant wishes upon request. But that said, it seems to me that our belief in our ability to do things once thought impossible is what has brought us to being able to do many of them today. And it is certainly true that not believing we could do them wouldn't have gotten us there.



And so? As best I can gather (since you didn't provide a link) you were making your usual case for a literal interpretation, which indeed would give the impression of there being some kind of "Super Jinn" in the sky who was obliged to grant our every wish. But, proving (or agreeing with) the non-existence of such a droll figure is wholly irrelevant to the existence of God, and that characteristic is typical of your arguments, including the current Santa Claus analogy, which is why they always fail (despite your preference for attributing their lack of success to the other fellow not "getting it").

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/9/2011 7:53:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
2. Solipism alone does not explain the same amount of facts as the hypothesis of a real universe. It does not explain why the hallucination has the form it has.
With Solipsism that's trivially explained, this is just what you happen to be hallucinating at the moment

Ok, I will repeat this once more. If you don't understand it, I give up.
No, Solipism does not explain any concrete perception, because it does not explain why you get exactly that hallucination and not any other possible hallucination.
quote:

On the other hand the theory that reality is real doesn't explain why reality has the form it has

The hypothesis that reality exists allows me to search for more answers, find them, and explain many current, concrete perceptions. For example, I see a screen now because there is a screen, because I bought it, etc, etc, etc.


I came up with another explanation: Solipism is not only "not proved" by Occam's Razor. It can even be discarded using Occam's Razor.

Fact to explain: I perceive things (not entering on what I perceive).
Hypothesis one: Brute Fact "I am hallucinating (and these are my perceptions)". Does not resolve "Why I am hallucinating", opening a new question which is bigger as the question it resolves, as it needs a person hallucinating, and a reason to hallucinate. It includes therefore an objective universe (where at least the person who hallucinates exists) as well as hallucinations (and all which is required for them) and a reason for the fact that I am hallucinating. Comparing the questions which remain open before and after the explanation, now we have more things to explain, not less. Therefore, the explanatory value of this hypothesis is negative (entropic).
Hypothesis two: Brute Fact "The universe exists (and I perceive it)". Does not resolve "Why does the universe exist", but at least we are with only one "universe" (in H1 we had two, the hallucinated one and the real one). Still, as it opens more questions as it closes, the explanatory value is also negative. It is disputable, if they are both equally negative, or if H1 is more negative as H2. But H1 is not less negative as H2, and both are negative.
That means that none is an explanation at all. An explanation must have a positive explanatory value. It must close more questions as it opens.

Fact to explain: "Why do I perceive exactly what I perceive, and not anything else?"
H1) "I am hallucinating, and there is no explanation why I hallucinate every single thing, no real objective mechanism for my hallucinations". That introduces indeed very few objects, but transforms every single perception in a Brute Fact. The amount of questions remains exactly the same as before H1, where I had no explanation for every perception and therefore they were Brute Facts.
H2) "There is a universe, and it has planets, and..." (follows the whole universe which we can perceive with reason). This introduces indeed a huge number of objects, but at the same time, it actually closes questions. I got a computer because I bought it. I see a Martian made of plastic because the director had no money for better special effects. Some unexplained perceptions remain, but they are few, and the rest is concatenated in chains of sufficient causes (including random events, but not improbable or unreasonable ones, which would be some of the few "unexplained") so that the questions open are less than in H1, where simply everything I percieve is a Brute Fact.

The pondered weight of the Brute Facts is not the same, and therefore, H2 simply does not explain the same as H1. It explains more. Is this "more" enough to justify the introduction of so many additional events? The question is not relevant, because in the moment we admit that H1 and H2 do not explain the same amount of facts, we stop being able to use Occam's Razor. We have to use other mechanisms and rules of reason.

I have started to go deeper, and I really wanted to avoid this, but if it helps...



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625