- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I note you don't actually bother to explain what, specifically, is flawed or unscientific about it.
Argument by declaration is a logical fallacy. A recognised one, not one you just have to take my word on, unlike your point.
Like I said: Inability or unwillingness to understand. You counter arguments that that no one has said and without any basis or elaboration on your arguments, I might add.
I can elaborate then.
The simplest answer is NOT always the correct one. Duh.
Nor, even if it is USUALLY the correct one, does that make it any more correct. It simply makes it statistically correct more often.
And then there is analysis of the concept of "simplicity" which, aside from being non-existent, is entirely Qualitative.
And simple but wildly inaccurate theories are not hard to come up with.
Nor are accurate theories which are highly complex.
And then there is, "b-caws they say so:"
- ^ Alan Baker, Simplicity, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004) Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- ^ Courtney A, Courtney M: Comments Regarding "On the Nature Of Science", Physics in Canada, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2008), p7-8.
- ^ Dieter Gernert, Ockham's Razor and Its Improper Use, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135-140, (2007).
- ^Elliott Sober, Let’s Razor Occam’s Razor, p. 73-93, from Dudley Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits, Cambridge University Press (1994).
And Thanks for goading me into researching it so I can chuckle more when people try to apply it for themselves.
Last edited:
Upvote
0