Shaving With Occam's Razor
Read the article this discussion is about
- JeredWM
- RickR
- JoelG
- Frank_Monaldo
- RickR
- JoelG
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» JeredWM - Frank: This article represents, to me, another of your unusua
Frank:This article represents, to me, another of your unusual trends in article-writing: you like to go off on these wild tangents about topics completely unrelated to the subject at hand, then try to tie them in anyway. This is especially egregious in this case, where, I think, you've taken great liberties in your interpretation of Occam's Razor.
First, I do have to commend you for citing Occam's actual Razor, before you reduced it to the oversimplication with which it is commonly associated. Unfortunately, though, you ceased there--you immediately introduced the simplification, and left the real statement in the dust.
The problem with the simplification is that the word "simplest" is quite ambiguous, and many people, just as you did in this article, interpret it in a manner inconsistent with the original Razor. They, like you, use "simple" to mean "easiest to understand," "easiest to explain," or "easiest to believe." But that isn't the correct sense of "simple" at all, as a review of Occam's statement will tell.
As you cited, Occam's Razor says, "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity." What this means is that, given the choice between an explanation which contains an explanation of a phenomenon, and a second explanation which contains all the principles of the first plus additional principles, and which offers no further explanation for the facts beyond the first, then the former is a better explanation than the second.
An illustration I like to use for this is explaining friction by the population of all matter with tiny demons in high-traction gloves & sneakers, pushing against movement of touching bodies. This is properly sculpted away by Occam's Razor because it hasn't offered any additional explanation of the "stickiness" of the gloves & sneakers, which explanation alone would be sufficient to explain the stickiness (friction) of bodies themselves. The demons are completely extraneous to the explanation, because the demon explanation still requires an explanation of the original phenomenon.
So, I think you really need to demonstrate not just that Clintonites' explanations are "more complex" in the ordinary sense, but "more complex" in this very narrow sense--that every explanation they offer is above and beyond satisfactory explanations offered elsewhere, and contribute no new understanding of the situation--if you want to apply Occam's Razor. I frankly [no pun intended] doubt that you, or anyone, would be able to do this, since Clinton's explanations are an alternative, not an addition, to those offered by his detractors.
In conclusion, I think that Occam's Razor--when properly understood--is a very valuable tool for philosophy and physical sciences. I do not think it an especially useful tool for history, politics, or psychology. This should not be taken to mean that I think contorted explanations are "just as likely" to be correct as simple [in the ordinary sense] ones; it just means that I think Occam's Razor is being recklessly misapplied here. And remember, it's only funny until you put somebody's eye out with it.
-- posted by JeredWM
» RickR - Frank,<br> I have to agree with Jared here. You abused poor Wil
Frank,I have to agree with Jared here. You abused poor William's principle to death. You did, however, make a few good points. that shouldn't be lost because you started in the wrong place. And, Occam's Razor, I have found, is one of the most misapplied of all intellectual ideas. It was a reaction to the scholastic idea that you must bring things back to a first cause in order to understand them.
You did, however, point up numerous inconsistencies in the position of the President's defenders. Still in all, I think you are missing the point. What needs to be assessed to the effect on government, and hence the effect on all of us, of the fact that our President is obviously still a randy teenager when it comes to sex. I don't think anyone with an I.Q. in triple digits doubts that there is some fire behind this smoke screen.
Rick
Censorship
-- posted by RickR
» JoelG - Rick: With all due respect, you're either buying wholesale or
Rick:With all due respect, you're either buying wholesale or consciously propagating the liberal party line that all of Clinton's problems relate back to sex. While I think the fact that he can't keep his zipper up is a relevant clue about his character, we really have much bigger fish to fry. How 'bout clear evidence of violation of campaign finance laws? How 'bout sales of missle technology to the only country that has nuclear missles pointed at us? How 'bout all the bodies lieing all over the place? How 'bout all the members of his administration in jail, or under indictment? How 'bout all the people who have pled the Fifth or fled the country?
We're all pretty intelligent in this forum. Let's not fall for the nightly news line that this is an investigation into Clinton's sex life.
/Joel
-- posted by JoelG
» Frank_Monaldo - Dear Russell and Jared:<p> For me, writing these essays is no
Dear Russell and Jared:For me, writing these essays is not particularly distinquishable
from the act of thinking. Hence, sometimes I do bring disparate ideas together. I hope you appreciate this approach or at the very least forgive it.
Occam's Razor is one manifestation of a more general attitude about not only choosing the explanation that requires the least entities, but also the fewest assumptions, or simply the more beautiful idea the better. There was a recent article in American Scientist discussing the proposition that the more beautiful the idea the more likely it is to be true.
If you wish to minimize the number of entities required consider this. According to Stewart Taylor of the American Lawyer, you have to believe 10-15 entities lied under oath to believe that Clinton did not lie under oath. Even the First Lady herself asks you to believe in a "vast" conspiracy. It seems we have
the unnecessary multiplication of entities here.
In any case Joel's main point is well taken. Even the most
avid Clinton critic would not expect articles of impeachment to ever include sexual sins. It is perjury and suborning perjury and obstruction of justice that will, if anything, be Clinton's undoing.
Regards,
Frank
Frank Monaldo
Contributing Editor, Conservative Politcs
Check out the entire Politics area.
Personal Homepage: http://home.us.net/~fmm/
-- posted by Frank_Monaldo
» RickR - Joel, I beg to differ. Breaking the law is what politicians in t
Joel, I beg to differ. Breaking the law is what politicians in this United States do, constantly and consistently. No one cares when a policeman murders an innocent man on a city street. Unless there is a videotape the policeman walks away without a charge. Why? Politicians break the law.In my own area of the Suite, censorship, I have catalouged the fact that, despite the First Amendment, the United States government has burned more books than any other political entity the world has ever known. Why?
Politicians break the law.
The only reason this dispute holds any interest for the public is sex. Why? Because the public doesn't really care if
politicians break the law.
Rick
Censorship
-- posted by RickR
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.