Tobin wrote: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.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"
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: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.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.
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.