RE: Trying (Full Version)

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



Message

GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/10/2011 6:27:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
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.

There's a real consensus that Occams Razor can't be used to prove things true or false. That just doesn't happen here, even when the subject is do unicorns exist we don't end all end up in agreement against one poster. As such I ask you again please provide a link showing that science uses Occams Razor to prove things true and false. I'm asking that because I think that if you can present a credible link explaining that Occams Razor works like that it will go a lot farther than your proof that Occams Razor works that way which everyone has already found to be at least uncompelling.

Now, I can cite sources that Occams Razor doesn't work the way you want it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Science_and_the_scientific_method
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[10][11][12][33] As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.[8][11] Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.[10][11][12][13]


I can also find citations that applying Occams Razor to God isn't quite the slam dunk that you think:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Religion
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred (Schmitt 2005). Some such arguments are based on the assertion that belief in God requires more complex assumptions to explain the universe than non-belief (e.g. the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit). On the other hand, there are various arguments in favour of a God which attempt to establish a God as a useful explanation. Philosopher Del Ratzsch[38] suggests that the application of the razor to God may not be so simple, least of all when we are comparing that hypothesis with theories postulating multiple invisible universes.[39[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#cite_note-38][/link]]




GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/10/2011 6:58:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
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?


Like I said I do try and clarify before I'd be willing to make a statement like "there is no God". Thing is if someone is still willing to swap God out for god or a higher intelligence after 18 pages there isn't a whole lot that adding a few extra words would do.



GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/10/2011 7:01:08 AM)

Here's a link, how about you actually explain your position instead of just heckling people:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3390108/mpage_18/key_mountain/tm.htm#3409793



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/10/2011 11:48:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Here's a link, how about you actually explain your position instead of just heckling people:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3390108/mpage_18/key_mountain/tm.htm#3409793

I explained it in the post you're whining about. Perhaps that's what you experienced as heckling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

You keep trying to pretend that I'm a Biblical literalist, I'm not.

What I've said (not pretended) is that you argue from a literalist interpretation, no different from any Fundamentalist whacko, just to a different end. You're arguing from a literalist interpretation at the link you cited. And your argument, as always, is that a literal interpretation leads to nonsense and that any less-than-literal interpretation "makes the god in those stories equally fictitious."

All wrapped up slick and airtight, a triumph of reason, too bad some people don't "get it," right? Well let's see...

You read something I wrote that says, "My girl is a ray of sunshine." You argue, from your trademark literalist interpretation, that that's nonsense, that the sun doesn't emit girls, and that furthermore they aren't made of light in the first place. When I counter by saying you can't interpret my words literally like that, you insist if that's the case then the girl I'm writing about is "equally fictitious."

Now hey, I call that unadulterated batshit... but we can agree to disagree if you call it heckling.

K.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Trying (12/10/2011 12:57:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
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.

There's a real consensus that Occams Razor can't be used to prove things true or false. That just doesn't happen here, even when the subject is do unicorns exist we don't end all end up in agreement against one poster. As such I ask you again please provide a link showing that science uses Occams Razor to prove things true and false. I'm asking that because I think that if you can present a credible link explaining that Occams Razor works like that it will go a lot farther than your proof that Occams Razor works that way which everyone has already found to be at least uncompelling.

Now, I can cite sources that Occams Razor doesn't work the way you want it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Science_and_the_scientific_method
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[10][11][12][33] As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.[8][11] Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.[10][11][12][13]


I can also find citations that applying Occams Razor to God isn't quite the slam dunk that you think:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Religion
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred (Schmitt 2005). Some such arguments are based on the assertion that belief in God requires more complex assumptions to explain the universe than non-belief (e.g. the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit). On the other hand, there are various arguments in favour of a God which attempt to establish a God as a useful explanation. Philosopher Del Ratzsch[38] suggests that the application of the razor to God may not be so simple, least of all when we are comparing that hypothesis with theories postulating multiple invisible universes.[39[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#cite_note-38][/link]]




To hopefully end the false use of Occam's Razor, it was a philosophical/religious statement based on a belief in minimalism. It says NOTHING about science and does not prove anything. There are any number of scientific theories that were proven to be more complex than simpler theories that explained the same phenomena.



GotSteel -> RE: Agnosticism (12/10/2011 1:20:22 PM)

That whole post was a pile of lies and bullshit, I've put up with enough personal attacks and dickishness. Start saying what you think things actually do mean or fuck off.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/10/2011 4:58:58 PM)

Willbeur, does Spanish have you on ignore yet?




SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 12:11:51 AM)

GotSteel: Ditto. Best regards.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 12:22:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Willbeur, does Spanish have you on ignore yet?




Probably, since I pointed out that the only game he knows how to play is "I make the rules and change them when Im losing".



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 1:38:06 AM)

Yeah I figured, so posting about Occam's Razor to me probably won't do much good.

P.S. I wonder what he was writing ditto about?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 2:22:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Yeah I figured, so posting about Occam's Razor to me probably won't do much good.
P.S. I wonder what he was writing ditto about?
I just do not have anything to add to my previous answers (#340, #334). I think that I have answered all the points already.
If you have more questions, be my guest, if not, I would abandon this thread.
Best regards.



Kirata -> RE: Agnosticism (12/11/2011 8:44:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

That whole post was a pile of lies and bullshit, I've put up with enough personal attacks and dickishness. Start saying what you think things actually do mean or fuck off.

I can assure that I said exactly what I meant, and to the best of my knowledge there are no lies or bullshit in that post. By adopting a literal interpretation as your premise, you are reasoning from the same premise as a Biblical literalist. You may have a different reason for adopting that premise, and be arguing to a different end, but that doesn't change the fact that reasoning from false premises is Locke's definition of insanity.

K.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 3:07:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I just do not have anything to add to my previous answers (#340, #334). I think that I have answered all the points already.
If you have more questions, be my guest, if not, I would abandon this thread.
Best regards.


I think you've made where your coming from relatively clear. I don't blame you for calling it a day, considering that the most reasonable person I'm still having a discussion with is trying to convince me that unicorns could be real, yeah I'm pretty burned out on the thread as well.

As for answering all the points, you never did find any documentation showing that Occam's Razor can be used the way you want to.

Also, even if we grand you all the contested points in your proof, (as in all of them) the proof still doesn't show that it's valid to use Occam's Razor that way.
Let me put it this way, take any of the classic god of the gaps arguments. When the argument is that you either have to assume god or we don't know a piece of information. I would hope that we agree that doesn't mean oh well I guess we have to assume god is real, the correct answer is that we don't know that piece of information isn't it? Similarly even if it's true that we don't know that we have noses unless we assume that Occam's Razor is usable that alone wouldn't make it valid to use Occam's Razor in that manner.

Even if you're granted all the points that people have been debating you on it wouldn't mean that Occam's Razor works the way you claim it would, it would just mean that we don't know if we have noses.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 9:36:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
As for answering all the points, you never did find any documentation showing that Occam's Razor can be used the way you want to.
But I still answered to your request. Not they way you wanted (and I can explain you in more detail why) but I answered.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Also, even if we grand you all the contested points in your proof, (as in all of them) the proof still doesn't show that it's valid to use Occam's Razor that way.
I do not understand that.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Let me put it this way, take any of the classic god of the gaps arguments. When the argument is that you either have to assume god or we don't know a piece of information.
This has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. This rule does NOT compare two explanations which explain a different amount of things. So, I do not know why you come up with this.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Similarly even if it's true that we don't know that we have noses unless we assume that Occam's Razor is usable that alone wouldn't make it valid to use Occam's Razor in that manner.
There is a fundamental difference here. We percieve something. We seek for an explanation for that fact. We do not perceive anything whose best explanation is God. We do percieve things whose best explanation is that we have a nose. And this is exactly one reason why we have to assume that we have a nose, and not that there is a God.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Even if you're granted all the points that people have been debating you on it wouldn't mean that Occam's Razor works the way you claim it would, it would just mean that we don't know if we have noses.
I think you are wrong also here. Please check#278 {A}1 .  "We want to follow rules, which allow us to say that we have a nose (for example)." I think you forgot that one. If you grant me all the points, you must grant me that one as well, and it was part of my reasoning.

And I can explain you that also with more detail. It is about how knowledge systems are based on principles we decide to accept without any justification (because if they have, they are not principles but conclusions) and how reason is a knowledge system.

I am sorry, GotSteel, but I do think that I have solidly supported every claim I made and was questioned, in a valid and truthful manner, following reason and without the slightest gap or inconsistency. The only "weak" point in my argumentation up to date is that I cannot formulate fully and completely Occam's Razor here (or maybe you want to call it Principle of Parsimony, or Skeptical Principle, or Preponderance of the Negation, as I said already that I am refering to a basic principle which is the common ground of them all) and therefore somebody could possible come up with some example not covered by my summary (but "Solipism alone" is not, I hope you got that).

I really hope I do not sound arrogant, but I really think I did. Solidly and clearly, repeatedly and rationally.



Ishtarr -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 9:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

P.S. I wonder what he was writing ditto about?



He doesn't know what the word means... like many of the others he uses in his "arguments".



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 10:56:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
But I still answered to your request. Not they way you wanted (and I can explain you in more detail why) but I answered.

Yes, you declined my request to cite a source (I suspect that there's a reason for that).



quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Also, even if we grand you all the contested points in your proof, (as in all of them) the proof still doesn't show that it's valid to use Occam's Razor that way.


Sorry for the typo, it should read:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Also, even if we grant you all the contested points in your proof, (as in all of them) the proof still doesn't show that it's valid to use Occam's Razor that way.





quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Let me put it this way, take any of the classic god of the gaps arguments. When the argument is that you either have to assume god or we don't know a piece of information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
This has nothing to do with Occam's Razor. This rule does NOT compare two explanations which explain a different amount of things. So, I do not know why you come up with this.


Correct, I'm not talking about Occam's Razor. I'm talking about the proof that you're using Occam's Razor in. As I understand it you're claiming that unless we use Occam's Razor in the way you have described we can't know whether or not we have noses.

What I'm saying is OK pretend for a moment that you've managed to convince us that said claim is true. You would have in absolutely no way shown that it's valid to use Occam's Razor in the way you have described. At best all you can hope to accomplish is to show us that if it's invalid to use Occam's Razor the way you have described then we wouldn't know whether we had noses.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/11/2011 11:40:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Yes, you declined my request to cite a source (I suspect that there's a reason for that).
Not surprising, I have invited you to ask.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Also, even if we grant you all the contested points in your proof, (as in all of them) the proof still doesn't show that it's valid to use Occam's Razor that way.
Ditto
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
As I understand it you're claiming that unless we use Occam's Razor in the way you have described we can't know whether or not we have noses.
This is correct. And I have proven it too, in the game, but I am open to any rational objection. Just, nobody has given me any. Nobody has ever proved that he has a nose without using it, in a rational way, nor in this thread, nor in this forum, nor anywhere else. They end up attacking me, recognizing (as Zone did) that they can't say that they have a nose, or building up inconsistent arguments.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
You would have in absolutely no way shown that it's valid to use Occam's Razor in the way you have described.
I have, by showing that if we do not use it (this way) we can't say that we have a nose, and using #278 {A}1 as premise.

In short:
1. We want to have a rational knowledge system which allows us to say that we have a nose (for example).
2. There is no rational knowledge system which allows us without using Occam's Razor ("my way", you would add, I do not).
3(1,2). Therefore, we have to use Occam's Razor.

And again, all this is inexact because I have to be brief. Occam's Razor stays here for "the common ground of the rules known as Occam's Razor, Principle of Parsimony, Preponderance of the Negation and Skeptical Principle, which is part of the common sense, which we use every day many times in our lives, and is part of reason".

Again, you can ask whatever details you want. But unless you have any more questions, I suggest that we let it be.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 5:05:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I have, by showing that if we do not use it (this way) we can't say that we have a nose, and using #278 {A}1 as premise.


I'm pointing out that a demonstration that we can't say that we have a nose without using it does not demonstrate that it's valid to use it (i.e. Occam's Razor).



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 5:29:38 AM)

Spanish, I'm pointing out that your argument contains a logical fallacy. An example of this problem that I would have expected you to have seen before is in the god of the gaps argument.

The theist points out that unless we assume God we don't have an answer for some question. However, that does not demonstrate that it's valid for us to assume God.

With that in mind take a look at your argument again:

You point out that unless we assume (Occam's Razor is valid to use that way) we don't have an answer for some question. However, that does not demonstrate that it's valid for us to assume (Occam's Razor is valid to use that way).


P.S. You may want to look up the word ditto. It doesn't seem to make sense the way your using it.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/12/2011 7:51:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I have, by showing that if we do not use it (this way) we can't say that we have a nose, and using #278 {A}1 as premise.

I'm pointing out that a demonstration that we can't say that we have a nose without using it does not demonstrate that it's valid to use it (i.e. Occam's Razor).
True. And I am pointing out that I demonstrated that it is valid to use it, anyway. In another demonstration, part of #287 (which is not a demonstration that we can't say that we have a nose without using it, even if it uses this fact). I answer with more detail in the next message, please ignore this one.



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875