Feedback/Notes

 

Latest Activity

Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"God is just a sick, sexually frustrated bully who likes to jerk off to us while we cry. -- Steve…"
4 hours ago
Richard Levison left a comment for Jeanette Joyce Steck
""Happy Birthday!""
7 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"Pathetic, huh?"
19 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"When the religious claim they have proof of the existence of god they can't use their holy…"
19 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Richard Levison's photo
Thumbnail

A woo woo religion!

"Richard, remember this from the recent past?  "Don't drink the cool-aid" "
21 hours ago
Stephen Brodie commented on Richard Levison's photo
Thumbnail

A woo woo religion!

"Sorry Richard but it's obvious to me that Raelian message is nothing but pseudo-scientific…"
21 hours ago
Loren Miller left a comment for Andi Quinn
"Greets, Andi, and welcome!  I hope you enjoy your time here."
23 hours ago
Richard Levison posted a photo

A woo woo religion!

This photo is dedicated to our Atheist member Stephen.
yesterday
Richard Levison left a comment for Olivia McIntire
""Happy Birthday!""
yesterday
Loren Miller commented on Loren Miller's group Quote Of The Day
"The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a…"
yesterday
Stephen Brodie left a comment for Richard Levison
"This is from the horse's mouth. Raelian website. And you say it's not a religion,…"
yesterday
Stephen Brodie left a comment for Andi Quinn
"You're welcome Andi. Glad to see you here."
yesterday
Mrs.B left a comment for Andi Quinn
"Hope to see you join, & comment in some groups. That's the best way to get to know us some."
yesterday
Andi Quinn left a comment for Stephen Brodie
"Hi Stephen, Thank you! It's so nice to find a community of atheists!"
yesterday
Stephen Brodie commented on Hope's group Imagine No Organized Religion
"WOTMQ: Death Becomes Him"
yesterday
Mrs.B left a comment for Andi Quinn
"Good to see you here."
yesterday
Stephen Brodie left a comment for Andi Quinn
"Hey Andy. Welcome to AU"
yesterday
Mrs.B left a comment for Wallis Lucy
"Good to see you here."
yesterday
Stephen Brodie left a comment for Wallis Lucy
"Hi Wallis welcome to AU"
yesterday
Profile IconAndi Quinn and Wallis Lucy joined Atheist Universe
yesterday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Skeptics often invoke Ockham's Razor to dismiss unbelievable nonsense, but is it logically, philosophically and scientifically justifiable to rely too much on Ockham's Razor? Ockham's Razor is not a law of nature; there have been times where evidence has shown that the actual explanation for natural phenomena was indeed more complex than the simpler hypothesis considered first. Ockham's Razor is a very good tool, very useful, but it should not be abused.

 

Massimo Pigliucci has an excellent blog post on this. I recommend bookmarking it.

 

Friday, May 06, 2011


Razoring Ockham’s razor


by Massimo Pigliucci
 
Scientists, philosophers and skeptics alike are familiar with the idea of Ockham’s razor, an epistemological principle formulated in a number of ways by the English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1288-1348). Here is one version of it, from the pen of its originator:
 
Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. [It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer] (Summa Totius Logicae)
 
Philosophers often refer to this as the principle of economy, while scientists tend to call it parsimony. Skeptics invoke it every time they wish to dismiss out of hand claims of unusual phenomena (after all, to invoke the “unusual” is by definition unparsimonious, so there).
 
There is a problem with all of this, however, of which I was reminded recently while reading an old paper by my colleague Elliot Sober, one of the most prominent contemporary philosophers of biology. Sober’s article is provocatively entitled “Let’s razor Ockham’s razor” and it is available for download from his web site.
 
Let me begin by reassuring you that Sober didn’t throw the razor in the trash. However, he cut it down to size, so to speak. The obvious question to ask about Ockham’s razor is: why? On what basis are we justified to think that, as a matter of general practice, the simplest hypothesis is the most likely one to be true? Setting aside the surprisingly difficult task of operationally defining “simpler” in the context of scientific hypotheses (it can be done, but only in certain domains, and it ain’t straightforward), there doesn’t seem to be any particular logical or metaphysical reason to believe that the universe is a simple as it could be.
 
Indeed, we know it’s not. The history of science is replete with examples of simpler (“more elegant,” if you are aesthetically inclined) hypotheses that had to yield to more clumsy and complicated ones. The Keplerian idea of elliptical planetary orbits is demonstrably more complicated than the Copernican one of circular orbits (because it takes more parameters to define an ellipse than a circle), and yet, planets do in fact run around the gravitational center of the solar system in ellipses, not circles.
 
Lee Smolin (in his delightful The Trouble with Physics) gives us a good history of 20th century physics, replete with a veritable cemetery of hypotheses that people thought “must” have been right because they were so simple and beautiful, and yet turned out to be wrong because the data stubbornly contradicted them.
 
In Sober’s paper you will find a discussion of two uses of Ockham’s razor in biology, George Williams’ famous critique of group selection, and “cladistic” phylogenetic analyses. In the first case, Williams argued that individual- or gene-level selective explanations are preferable to group-selective explanations because they are more parsimonious. In the second case, modern systematists use parsimony to reconstruct the most likely phylogenetic relationships among species, assuming that a smaller number of independent evolutionary changes is more likely than a larger number.
 
Part of the problem is that we do have examples of both group selection (not many, but they are there), and of non-parsimonious evolutionary paths, which means that at best Ockham’s razor can be used as a first approximation heuristic, not as a sound principle of scientific inference.
 
And it gets worse before it gets better. Sober cites Aristotle, who chided Plato for hypostatizing The Good. You see, Plato was always running around asking what makes for a Good Musician, or a Good General. By using the word Good in all these inquiries, he came to believe that all these activities have something fundamental in common, that there is a general concept of Good that gets instantiated in being a good musician, general, etc. But that, of course, is nonsense on stilts, since what makes for a good musician has nothing whatsoever to do with what makes for a good general.
 
Analogously, suggests Sober, the various uses of Ockham’s razor have no metaphysical or logical universal principle in common — despite what many scientists, skeptics and even philosophers seem to think. Williams was correct, group selection is less likely than individual selection (though not impossible), and the cladists are correct too that parsimony is usually a good way to evaluate competitive phylogenetic hypotheses. But the two cases (and many others) do not share any universal property in common.
Read the rest here.

Views: 180

Replies to This Discussion

Ockham's Razor, indeed like the measurement of "simplicity", is practically useless. The notion of using formalistic criteria for evaluating theories irrespective of content is a dead end.

Indeed. Pigliucci spells it out in his last paragraph:

 

So, Ockham’s razor is a sharp but not universal tool, and needs to be wielded with the proper care due to the specific circumstances. For skeptics, this means that one cannot eliminate flying saucers a priori just because they are an explanation less likely to be the correct than, say, a meteor passing by (indeed, I go in some detail into precisely this sort of embarrassing armchair skepticism in Chapter 3 of Nonsense on Stilts). There is no shortcut for a serious investigation of the world, including the spelling out of our auxiliary, and often unexplored, hypotheses and assumptions.

I don't think Ockham's Razor is useless at all. However, it must be wielded with care! I don't think it is so much a scientific tool, or a foolproof argumentation technique as it is a mental discipline.
Someone clumsy could inadvertantly simplify himself with an accidental cut.

It is useless only if used without thinking about the context and content first. It is good heuristics, but some people use it as if it were a logical fallacy not to apply it, and that's not the case. I've seen many an atheist online claiming god doesn't exist because of Ockham's razor, while in reality, "god does not exist" is the most highly probably (approaching 100%) fact because: a) there is no evidence for its existence; and only second) its existence is not needed as a hypothesis to explain anything. In reality, playing devil's advocate, could say that thinking only in Ockham's razors term, advocating the existence of a supernatural creator is the "simplest" explanation for the existence of the world. in fact, it is so "simple" that it precludes any further analysis, and kills a few neurons in the process, LOL!

 

In science, we use the razor all the time, even unconsciously: looking for the simplest explanation for an observed phenomenon first, saves time and it often is correct.

I'd go for spelling it Ocam's Razor.
That would be more parsimonious!
I've seen it spelled "Occam" as well. Go figure.
LOL

RSS

© 2021   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service