Is God changing?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _subgenius »

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:But the scientific and rest of the world does not agree with you...parsimony is not a tool that "decides a competition"...it is not the tool, means, or measure by which a "value" or a "truth" can be determined. It is merely a means of evaluating a "method"....like "going around your elbow to get to your thumb"
Actually, as I see in your answer below, you dispute the implications of Occam's Razor and using parsimony as a means to judge among hypotheses which is best. as far as I know in general the scientific community does not reject Occam's Razor as you do, so I don't think you are speaking with any authority on the matter.


Then CFO on your claim. Post the one reputable and accomplished scientist that puts forth something, anything, as being "true" simply because it is the "simplest". Even the yet to be manifest Sagan only considers the fewest assumptions "after" all things are equal.

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:Yes, i do dispute what you are saying about parsimony. Because it does not speak to "correctness".... and the razor does not compare quantities, it simply states that you should not make "unnecessary" assumptions.
It would seem you reject Occam's Razor since we use it to compare theories. That is also why you have such a bizarre opinion about the uses of parsimony. Since we aren't dealing with facts, but only your opinion, I don't have a problem just simply dismissing your views.

No one, absolutely no one can reasonably dismiss a theory solely based upon how hard or how easy it is constructed. You say things like "we" as if you can actually post a reputable consensus for your claim.

Quite honestly your dismissal is not surprising given the amount of unnecessary assumptions you are making about how parsimony is used.
Good luck with that

So, again we fall back upon my original response.
The fewest assumptions are required when one considers God.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _Tobin »

subgenius wrote:Then CFO on your claim. Post the one reputable and accomplished scientist that puts forth something, anything, as being "true" simply because it is the "simplest". Even the yet to be manifest Sagan only considers the fewest assumptions "after" all things are equal.
As I said, it seems your claim is scientists reject Occam's Razor. I'm not making that claim and you've given no good reasons why they would other than your say-so.
subgenius wrote:Quite honestly your dismissal is not surprising given the amount of unnecessary assumptions you are making about how parsimony is used.
Good luck with that

So, again we fall back upon my original response.
The fewest assumptions are required when one considers God.
I don't care. You are of the opinion that Occam's Razor is false and not applicable for comparing theories, yet that is by definition how it is used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." You've already disputed that, but unless you have a good reason to do so I don't think there is anything further to discuss. I fail to see anything to substantiate your claim that Occam's Razor (the law of parsimony) can't be used as a tool to evaluate competing theories.

And for those following along, remember that subgenius emphatically rejects Occam's Razor:
subgenius wrote:
Tobin wrote:And do you dispute that 'Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'?
Yes, i do dispute what you are saying about parsimony. Because it does not speak to "correctness".... and the razor does not compare quantities, it simply states that you should not make "unnecessary" assumptions.
There is no getting out of what you said.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _subgenius »

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:Then CFO on your claim. Post the one reputable and accomplished scientist that puts forth something, anything, as being "true" simply because it is the "simplest". Even the yet to be manifest Sagan only considers the fewest assumptions "after" all things are equal.
As I said, it seems your claim is scientists reject Occam's Razor. I'm not making that claim and you've given no good reasons why they would other than your say-so.

Perhaps i should have been more overt for you - scientists reject your erroneous application and definition of the razor.
Still waiting for that CFO

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:Quite honestly your dismissal is not surprising given the amount of unnecessary assumptions you are making about how parsimony is used.
Good luck with that

So, again we fall back upon my original response.
The fewest assumptions are required when one considers God.
I don't care. You are of the opinion that Occam's Razor is false and not applicable for comparing theories, yet that is by definition how it is used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

"should be selected" is not tantamount to "is the correct one" - see the difference? That selection is a function of expedience not a function of validity. So, if you are of the opinion that the "brain" hypothesis requires less assumptions then you should select that one and proceed with testing....but your selection in and of itself does not mean the "brain" hypothesis is automatically upgraded to theory or law...it especially doesn't even mean the hypothesis is "correct".

Furthermore, your convenient exchange of theory for hypothesis and hypothesis for theory is muddying the water.

Tobin wrote: You've already disputed that, but unless you have a good reason to do so I don't think there is anything further to discuss. I fail to see anything to substantiate your claim that Occam's Razor (the law of parsimony) can't be used as a tool to evaluate competing theories.

Here yo go sliding and slipping that goal post....the definition above, hypothesis, now its back to "theory" and now its "evaluate" whereas before it was "favor" "judge" etc.
The Razor directs us towards simplicity because it minimizes error and makes isolating causation and/or correlations easier...it does not inherently validate the method, hypothesis, theory, or even law based upon it being "simpler".


Tobin wrote:And for those following along, remember that subgenius emphatically rejects Occam's Razor:
subgenius wrote:(Tobin - And do you dispute that 'Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected'?)Yes, i do dispute what you are saying about parsimony. Because it does not speak to "correctness".... and the razor does not compare quantities, it simply states that you should not make "unnecessary" assumptions.
There is no getting out of what you said.

Not trying to "get out" of anything....simply trying to illuminate you to the notion that your own posted definition is not using "selected" as a synonym for "this one is correct and the other one is incorrect". (notice my intentional clarification of "what you are saying" a.k.a. - you are misinterpreting)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _ludwigm »

the end of this thread wrote:This post was made by Tobin who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by subgenius who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by Tobin who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
This post was made by subgenius who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

hehehe
... and I don't display ...
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _Tobin »

subgenius wrote:Perhaps i should have been more overt for you - scientists reject your erroneous application and definition of the razor. Still waiting for that CFO.

Take it up with Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). I'd like to see how long your opinion remains there before the community changes it back.

At this point, I'll just dismiss the rest of your unsubstantiated opinion about Occam's Razor. If anyone else is interested, they can comment.

Also, just as a point of fact, I misspoke when I said 'theories'. I meant to say hypotheses.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _subgenius »

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:Perhaps i should have been more overt for you - scientists reject your erroneous application and definition of the razor. Still waiting for that CFO.

Take it up with Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). I'd like to see how long your opinion remains there before the community changes it back.

At this point, I'll just dismiss the rest of your unsubstantiated opinion about Occam's Razor. If anyone else is interested, they can comment.

Also, just as a point of fact, I misspoke when I said 'theories'. I meant to say hypotheses.

Thanks for posting a citation of how you are incorrect.

buy hey, perhaps you can chime in on this thread and prove to SteelHead that i am correct, because he claims i am incorrect because my "hypothesis" is simple whereas his is correct because it is more complicated.
viewtopic.php?p=951200#p951200
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _Tobin »

subgenius wrote:Thanks for posting a citation of how you are incorrect.
That isn't true and anyone can read the link to Wikipedia on Occam's Razor and see you are misrepresenting the material.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _subgenius »

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:Thanks for posting a citation of how you are incorrect.
That isn't true and anyone can read the link to Wikipedia on Occam's Razor and see you are misrepresenting the material.

Explain how the following, from your link, conclude with your position here that "simpler = correct"

"In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models"
...
Baker then notes that principles, including Occam's razor, are often expressed in a way that is unclear regarding which facet of "simplicity"—parsimony or elegance—the principle refers to
...
The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected
...
simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable
...
The common form of the razor, used to distinguish between equally explanatory hypotheses, may be supported by the practical fact that simpler theories are easier to understand. (a.k.a. pragmatic)
...
When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it has meaning only in a very specific context of inquiry. Several background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter
...
If a sign is not necessary then it is meaningless. That is the meaning of Occam's Razor
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _Tobin »

subgenius wrote:Explain how the following, from your link, conclude with your position here that "simpler = correct"
That isn't my position at all. I've never claimed that simpler is correct. I've always spoken about how to select a hypothesis from among competing hypotheses and the relationship parsimony has with that. Occam's Razor isn't called the law of parsimony for no reason.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Is God changing?

Post by _subgenius »

Tobin wrote:
subgenius wrote:Explain how the following, from your link, conclude with your position here that "simpler = correct"
That isn't my position at all. I've never claimed that simpler is correct. I've always spoken about how to select a hypothesis from among competing hypotheses and the relationship parsimony has with that. Occam's Razor isn't called the law of parsimony for no reason.

you have made deliberate effort to equate this "selection" with "correctness", which the law of parsimony doth not make....which has been the point all along.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Post Reply