Tweet
Here is another article I wrote concerning "Occam's Razor".
For all the "critical thinkers" out here in the midst of confusion.......I encourage your input to help realize....that due to 21st intellect and understanding, that 19th C. "Principles" are considered flawed.
I'd love to hear rational critique of the following.....
Thanks for your dialogue and contribution.
be safe.
Tim
***************
©Tim (ZosoRocks) June 2021
From the Oxford Dictionary:
Oc·cam's ra·zor
/ˌäkəmz ˈrāzər/
noun
unpunctuated: Occams razor
noun: Occam's razor
noun: Ockham's razor
1. the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
=====================
From Britannica:
Occam’s razor, also spelled Ockham’s razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
=======================
This "principle" of the 19th C., attributed to William of Occam for which it is named, is flawed.
It is flawed in many different aspects.
A. "....in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary."
+ this is the thinking of a 19th C. Individual. This can also be an example of the limitations the principle applies itself to.
- Science uses its actions to find all possible answers. Occam's razor limits this extensive search
- New discoveries of all kinds are critiqued and analyzed. Occam's razor (if applied in its context of its origination) again, limits it's functionality.
- In court proceedings, "discovery" is the act of finding new or existing information, in order to possible convict or acquit an individual in a crime. If Occam's razor is applied (based upon its principle and context of its origination), then the saying "innocent until proven guilty" - is a fallacy.
B. I was recently told that "I am using Occam's razor not in the way it was intended."
+ Aren't so-called "principles" (philosophical or imperialistic), supposed to be universal when expressed? How is it that one individual can decide how a "principle" should or should not be used? Especially, when thinking that they alone can make the defining factor on whether it is wrong or right to use the principle as they see fit?
C. The intellect of the 19th C. has clearly been surpassed and has excelled vastly by 20th and 21st intelligence and analysis.
+ utilizing outdated and very limited thought processes to express 21st C. thinking is absurd. The human race has well out-paced its predecessors ten-fold in intellect and analysis. So to continue to utilize limited thinking of the past, clearly shows that some individuals refuse to accept they are wrong and still utilizing antiquated ideas and thinking.
For all the "critical thinkers" out here in the midst of confusion.......I encourage your input to help realize....that due to 21st intellect and understanding, that 19th C. "Principles" are considered flawed.
I'd love to hear rational critique of the following.....
Thanks for your dialogue and contribution.
be safe.
Tim
***************
©Tim (ZosoRocks) June 2021
From the Oxford Dictionary:
Oc·cam's ra·zor
/ˌäkəmz ˈrāzər/
noun
unpunctuated: Occams razor
noun: Occam's razor
noun: Ockham's razor
1. the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism.
=====================
From Britannica:
Occam’s razor, also spelled Ockham’s razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”
=======================
This "principle" of the 19th C., attributed to William of Occam for which it is named, is flawed.
It is flawed in many different aspects.
A. "....in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary."
+ this is the thinking of a 19th C. Individual. This can also be an example of the limitations the principle applies itself to.
- Science uses its actions to find all possible answers. Occam's razor limits this extensive search
- New discoveries of all kinds are critiqued and analyzed. Occam's razor (if applied in its context of its origination) again, limits it's functionality.
- In court proceedings, "discovery" is the act of finding new or existing information, in order to possible convict or acquit an individual in a crime. If Occam's razor is applied (based upon its principle and context of its origination), then the saying "innocent until proven guilty" - is a fallacy.
B. I was recently told that "I am using Occam's razor not in the way it was intended."
+ Aren't so-called "principles" (philosophical or imperialistic), supposed to be universal when expressed? How is it that one individual can decide how a "principle" should or should not be used? Especially, when thinking that they alone can make the defining factor on whether it is wrong or right to use the principle as they see fit?
C. The intellect of the 19th C. has clearly been surpassed and has excelled vastly by 20th and 21st intelligence and analysis.
+ utilizing outdated and very limited thought processes to express 21st C. thinking is absurd. The human race has well out-paced its predecessors ten-fold in intellect and analysis. So to continue to utilize limited thinking of the past, clearly shows that some individuals refuse to accept they are wrong and still utilizing antiquated ideas and thinking.
Comment