Is occams razor "double edged"?

[GrowingSmaller]

Sure, depending on the definition of "snorgalumps". I have not come across the term before. Why should I either assert or deny their existence if I do not even know what I am talking about?

Why does that matter? You said in your opening post that we shouldn't posit the non-existence of things without need. That's gotta include Snorgalumps. So why should you posit that Snorgalumps don't exist unless you need to?

Tiberius you seem to be missing my point. I agree with what you imply my attitude ought to be, I dont say they dont exist. Is that fair enough and reasonable?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sure, depending on the definition of "snorgalumps". I have not come across the term before. Why should I either assert or deny their existence if I do not even know what I am talking about?

Why does that matter? You said in your opening post that we shouldn't posit the non-existence of things without need. That's gotta include Snorgalumps. So why should you posit that Snorgalumps don't exist unless you need to?

Tiberius you seem to be missing my point. I agree with what you imply my attitude ought to be, I don't say they don't exist. Is that fair enough and reasonable?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Which means you wish to, for the reason of believing something; create a whole new category of claims and set them aside from how you generally evaluate claims.

Does this sound like an "explanation" with more or fewer moving parts?

It dounds to me like a discovery of a new domain of possible entity. Until we knowmore about it yes we can lack belief in their existence, but also their non-existence. That to me sounds the fairest option.

Were talking about claim evaluation here and if we treat all claims equally then we are unlikely to ever put forward unfalsifiable claims with no positive evidence as an "explanation".

Fair enough. But that ought not mean you lack belief in their non-existence.

As I described in the last post an unfalsifiable explanation is actually no explanation at all because it actually explains nothing IE it allows us no ability to make predictions.

Claims that explain everything actually explain nothing. Unfalsifiable claims like Gods explain every possible occurrence and are not actually explanations at all.

So if there is a God, our concept of God could not align with Him, because that would be to provide an explanatory concept where in fact you rule this out, because 'God explains nothing'. That does not make sense to me. Like having your cake and eating it. Or are you saying God is impossible simply because the God concept is not scientific-empiric?

 

[variant]

It dounds to me like a discovery of a new domain of possible entity. Until we knowmore about it yes we can lack belief in their existence, but also their non-existence. That to me sounds the fairest option.

We haven't discovered anything, believers have created the concept ex-nilo and demanded a special category of claim evaluation for it.

Fair enough. But that ought not mean you lack belief in their non-existence.

What does that even mean?

I am saying we should hold evaluation of purely hypothetical concepts until we can at least deal with information that might indicate that they exist.

Lacking any positive beliefs about purely hypothetical concepts should be standard.

So if there is a God, our concept of God could not align with Him, because that would be to provide an explanatory concept where in fact you rule this out, because 'God explains nothing'. That does not make sense to me. Like having your cake and eating it. Or are you saying God is impossible simply because the God concept is not scientific-empiric?

You are clearly not following.

If the concept of God is meaningful as an explanation it should give us concrete information about the world we live in.

If there is a God and we use that fact as an explanation we should be able to use the concept to make at least one falsifiable prediction dependent on the fact that there is a God, about the world, that comes true consistently.

Otherwise a purely unfalsifiable concept that makes no verifiable predictions about the future is not an explanation. It effectively explains nothing by predicting all possible futures.

The problem is an epistemological one when you deal with God "as an explanation". You have to evaluate what you mean by explaining things.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius you seem to be missing my point. I agree with what you imply my attitude ought to be, I don't say they don't exist. Is that fair enough and reasonable?

Yes and no.

It is reasonable by the standards that you have laid down.

It is unreasonable because those standards have required you to accept nonsense. The same standards that have you accepting that snorgalumps might be real also require you to accept any other nonsense I could make up. Given that there is no way for you to rate the likelihood of any of these things, then I can't see how your point of view can provide any useful information about the world. Sure, all the useful information would be in there, but it's buried under so much nonsense (like Snorgalumps) that you;d never be able to find it.

 

[KCfromNC]

KC 3 is lack belief in God, and 4 is lack belief in not-God. Therefore it is different from strong atheism, which is actually believe in not-God.

Yes, 4 is part of weak atheism, not-4 is part of strong atheism. It is what sets them apart from each other.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yes and no.

It is reasonable by the standards that you have laid down.

It is unreasonable because those standards have required you to accept nonsense. The same standards that have you accepting that snorgalumps might be real also require you to accept any other nonsense I could make up.

I neither accept not deny. Why should I deny unless there is counter-exidence? And I lack belief in both the affirmative and the negative. In the absensece of knowledge that seems to be the most balanced attitude.

I think "its nonsense" is a amateur attitude. And a genetic style fallacy. You think its nonsense, you just invented the concept in a lets say sarcastic fashion, therefore it doesn't exist because it originates in such an attitude. That's also an implicit argument from ignorance as far as I can tell. You dont know snorgalumps (3 headed beards on a planet called peachtree... for example) exist and then you conclude therefore they dont exist. But that's a non sequitir.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We haven't discovered anything, believers have created the concept ex-nilo and demanded a special category of claim evaluation for it.

No. For me at least it was discovered as it existed a priori in potentia. in the abstract domain. The theory of gravity discovered a domain (action of gravitation according to laws) and described its mechanics. Even if God does not exist, the domain that he belongs to (non existent things) for me is not invented but discovered.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What does that even mean?

I am saying we should hold evaluation of purely hypothetical concepts until we can at least deal with information that might indicate that they exist.

Lacking any positive beliefs about purely hypothetical concepts should be standard.

As should lacking negative beliefs, which is where Occam goes wrong IMO.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Otherwise a purely unfalsifiable concept that makes no verifiable predictions about the future is not an explanation. It effectively explains nothing by predicting all possible futures.

The problem is an epistemological one when you deal with God "as an explanation". You have to evaluate what you mean by explaining things.

Ok thanks I am new to this idea of explanation needing verifiable predictions. Could you give me an account of the reasoning behind this schemata. Hmmmm new philosophy - Ty. Smiles.

 

[variant]

No. For me at least it was discovered as it existed a priori in potentia. in the abstract domain. The theory of gravity discovered a domain (action of gravitation according to laws) and described its mechanics. Even if God does not exist, the domain that he belongs to (non existent things) for me is not invented but discovered.

Gravity is a theory that explains phenomena directly and makes even quantifiable predictions.

Abstraction is not what is going on here, more like make believe.

As should lacking negative beliefs, which is where Occam goes wrong IMO.

Occam doesn't assert that we should have negative beliefs, just simplicity is to be favored when given two explanations of events.

And indeed you are probably right. Theism just doesn't require us to disavow it until it shows itself to be a valid explanation.

Ok thanks I am new to this idea of explanation needing verifiable predictions. Could you give me an account of the reasoning behind this schemata. Hmmmm new philosophy - Ty. Smiles.

It is the simplest definition of an explanation that I can give that adequately fulfills what people mean epistemologically (which is of course more complicated).

Here is one such discussion:
Moser

An explanation gives us general information to make specific predictions about the world.

 

[Tiberius]

I neither accept not deny. Why should I deny unless there is counter-exidence? And I lack belief in both the affirmative and the negative. In the absensece of knowledge that seems to be the most balanced attitude.

But you are open to their existence, aren';t you?

I think "its nonsense" is a amateur attitude. And a genetic style fallacy. You think its nonsense, you just invented the concept in a lets say sarcastic fashion, therefore it doesn't exist because it originates in such an attitude. That's also an implicit argument from ignorance as far as I can tell. You dont know snorgalumps (3 headed beards on a planet called peachtree... for example) exist and then you conclude therefore they dont exist. But that's a non sequitir.

Wait...

Are you actually arguing that Snorgalumps really could possibly exist?

 

[sandwiches]

I neither accept not deny. Why should I deny unless there is counter-exidence? And I lack belief in both the affirmative and the negative. In the absensece of knowledge that seems to be the most balanced attitude.

Sounds like most atheists' definition of what we normally refer to atheism: "agnostic atheism." No atheist on here has "denied" the existence of God. Now, we have, in fact, shown that specific definitions of "god" are illogical, impossible, or incongruent.

For the vast majority of people, the default position is a negative one when it comes to assertions for which you have no reason to believe. In fact, I've yet to meet a single person who believes everything until it is proven to be false. I have no problem saying I don't believe in dragons, elves, gods, and unicorns.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But you are open to their existence, aren';t you?

If they have a coherent definition then yes ie they are not logically impossible.

Wait...

Are you actually arguing that Snorgalumps really could possibly exist?

See above.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have no problem saying I don't believe in dragons, elves, gods, and unicorns.

But are you strong or weak, there? Do you believe they dont exist, or do you klack belief in their existence. ANd if the latter, and this is my chosen theme, do you lack belief in the assertion of their non-existence too (I lack belief in "dradons etc don't exist").

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Gravity is a theory that explains phenomena directly and makes even quantifiable predictions.

Abstraction is not what is going on here, more like make believe.

Which statement is a function of your opinion. Fair enough its a fre country. But the "make believe" is subject to logical discussion right? If a make believe tre is all pink then it is not green etc. If God is all good then he is not bad at all. Theresare topics which can be discussed logically, even if there is no prediction following from them.

Occam doesn't assert that we should have negative beliefs, just simplicity is to be favored when given two explanations of events.

Ok thats fair. But I am not sure everyone beleives we ought not have negative beliefs.

And indeed you are probably right. Theism just doesn't require us to disavow it until it shows itself to be a valid explanation.

Yippee Im right. Shame I don't drink! Wait on the kettle is going on soon.

It is the simplest definition of an explanation that I can give that adequately fulfills what people mean epistemologically (which is of course more complicated).

Here is one such discussion:
Moser

An explanation gives us general information to make specific predictions about the world.

Will try to look into that one. Seems professional but perhaps a bit long for a noob.

 

[Received]

Occam's Razor is a pragmatic principle, not technically a rational one. Rationality allows for many possibilities, including those beyond pragmatism or practicality; OR "assumes" that the world doesn't work in a more complicated way than we would like.

So in that sense, OR begs the question. But that's fine, because with science we *need* to assume that things work simply rather than with more complexity -- or else we'll be here all day, and basic theories would never have gained any steam. But when we're talking about metaphysical questions, which are *by definition* beyond physical and therefore scientific limitations, we've moved beyond pragmatism into pure possibility.

 

[variant]

Which statement is a function of your opinion. Fair enough its a fre country. But the "make believe" is subject to logical discussion right? If a make believe tre is all pink then it is not green etc. If God is all good then he is not bad at all. Theresare topics which can be discussed logically, even if there is no prediction following from them.

That is part of the problem that some people (like yourself) think that merely being able to seemingly form thoughts about something requires a suspension of unbelief.

We can discuss dragons all day logically. Or, we can argue about how many can dance on the head of a pin.

My lack of belief in them is still fully justified by the lack of evidence for them.

Will try to look into that one. Seems professional but perhaps a bit long for a noob.

Careful and tedious philosophy is how you avoid having threads like this one.

 

[Tiberius]

If they have a coherent definition then yes ie they are not logically impossible.

Define what you mean by "coherent definition" please.

 

[sandwiches]

But are you strong or weak, there? Do you believe they dont exist, or do you klack belief in their existence. ANd if the latter, and this is my chosen theme, do you lack belief in the assertion of their non-existence too (I lack belief in "dradons etc don't exist").

I believe they don't exist because one of these issues:

A) have never been shown to be true
B) have been falsified outright
C) are unfalsifiable.

With A, by default I don't believe in things that have never been shown to be true and I have no reason to believe in
With B, I believe things that have been falsified do not exist
With C, I don't bother to believe in things which cannot be shown to be true or false.

For instance, I believe dragons, as described in all stories I've ever read do no exist because I have no reason to think they do, their description goes against what we understand of nature, and we've never seen one.

I believe no god exists because I have no reason to think one does exist, all currently testable descriptions of any god are either falsified or illogical, all other descriptions are currently unfalsifiable.