Is occams razor "double edged"?

[GrowingSmaller]

I take it to mean, "Don't assume that a particular thing exists unless there is no other option."

I mean, by taking it to mean that we shouldn't assume the non-existence of things, I can use Occam's razor as a basis for my belief in snorgalumps. And, by extension, I can use Occam's Razor in this way to show that an infinite number of things exist.

No IMO you would not assert them but you would not deny them either. After all in the absence relevant evidence why make a claim (there are no snorgalumps) or assume this on grounds of parsimony when it is simpler to remain noncommittal either way as regards to +s or -s.

 

[Giberoo]

Fair enough. But you don't believe they don't exist too, right? It seems that non religious people are biased in favour of the former (as you express it) rather than the other side of the equation. Why dont they say "the simplest explanation is to lack belief in the non-existence of God" ever?

I suspect because that is a long-winded way of putting it.

I am sure that some negatives are provable, like my socks are not pink.

Not even then. Every piece of evidence you advance for your socks not being pink may be flawed.

 

[variant]

But you lack belief in "god", obviously, but do you lack belief in "no god" also. Your use of simplicity seems to be biased in favour of rejecting belief in God, rather than rejecting belief in 'there is no God' too. But in the absence of evidence shouldnt your lack of belief equally cover both cases,.

A bias towards simplicity says we do not posit explanations needlessly.

The absence of evidence for positive claims should leave us unconvinced as to their correctness.

Absence of evidence against positive claims doesn't convince of anything as it is asking to prove a negative, which is entirely inappropriate in evidential matters.

God as an explanation is actually unfalsifiable, so the absence of negative evidence against it is to be expected.

Your approach is still horribly flawed here, there is no equivalence between the two states of mind you are addressing.

You said you 'do not have to assert theism is necessarily false' but what about instead of asserting such, what about merely lacking belief that theism is necessarily false? I hear SOOOOO MUCH about lacking belief in God, but hardly anything about lacking belief that there is no God. But aren't both equalty parsimonious?

I am open to the idea that God exists but require evidence to actually be convinced.

In the absence of that evidence I do not believe in God.

I am of the opinion that God is not in evidence. I am of the opinion that it is an explanation that should require it.

Atheists might say 3 is the simpler option but is 4 not as simple, but in fact rarely discussed or overtly stated as rational or parsimonious as 3?

Agnostics find questions of God to be unanswerable, which accurately covers 3 and 4.

Most agnostics are unbelievers because in the absence of evidence it is silly to take the positive position.

If you ONLY hold position 4 you are simply an agnostic believer.

It is not true that no one holds this position.

3 and 4 are also not equivalently parsimonious because positive positions without evidence are inherently more complicated.

 

[Tiberius]

No IMO you would not assert them but you would not deny them either. After all in the absence relevant evidence why make a claim (there are no snorgalumps) or assume this on grounds of parsimony when it is simpler to remain noncommittal either way as regards to +s or -s.

Wait...

So you are telling me that you actually think Snorgalumps might exist...?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I suspect because that is a long-winded way of putting it.

Ok cool. Its not an anti anti anti theistic bias than (or something long winded like that)?

Not even then. Every piece of evidence you advance for your socks not being pink may be flawed.

That seems to be hyper skepticism. Under those rules its difficult to reason about anything, negatives, positives or whatever at all.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

1)

Gb (believe G)


2)

-Gb (believe not God)


...theism (1) and strong atheism (2).

Than one can

3)

G-b (lack belief in God, weak athesism)

and finally

4)

-G-b (lack belief there is no God, what I call "an-atheism").

from this post

3 and 4 are also not equivalently parsimonious because positive positions without evidence are inherently more complicated.

Thats the bit I dont fully understand. I dont see why God exists (or the moon exists), is less preferable a priori then God doesnt exist (or the moon doesnt exist).

Or that lacking belief in God (or the moon) is to be preferable to lacking belief in not-God (or not-moon).

 

[variant]

Thats the bit I dont fully understand. I dont see why God exists (or the moon exists), is less preferable a priori then God doesnt exist (or the moon doesnt exist).

Or that lacking belief in God (or the moon) is to be preferable to lacking belief in not-God (or not-moon).

Since the moon is in evidence lack of belief in it is more complicated, you have to explain the preponderance of evidence away.

Since God is not in evidence lack of belief in it's absence is more complicated because you have to explain why there is no evidence.

Lack of positive beleif in God is the least complicated, since you don't have to explain anything about the lack of evidence.

The more skepical you are about things that are not in evidence, the simpler the explaination.

Position 4 "I lack belief in the skeptical position" is just skepticism of skepticism about a position that is not in evidence.

Why should we be skeptical of skepticism of positions not in evidence? What is the reason?

So, simply put, position 3 requires the least support.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Since God is not in evidence lack of belief in it's absence is more complicated because you have to explain why there is no evidence.

that is complicated but I can respect it fully. For the time being. Either I will explode thinking or something. Anyway ty for the thoughts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Wouldnt the best conclusion if there is no evidence, be strong atheism.? I mean if you were expecting to find some that is... Otherwise, why would the absence need explaining?

 

[Tiberius]

Growing Smaller, it seems that you have missed my last post, #24.

Here it is again for you.

No IMO you would not assert them but you would not deny them either. After all in the absence relevant evidence why make a claim (there are no snorgalumps) or assume this on grounds of parsimony when it is simpler to remain noncommittal either way as regards to +s or -s.

Wait...

So you are telling me that you actually think Snorgalumps might exist...?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Growing Smaller, it seems that you have missed my last post, #24.

Here it is again for you.



Wait...

So you are telling me that you actually think Snorgalumps might exist...?

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?

 

[variant]

Wouldnt the best conclusion if there is no evidence, be strong atheism.? I mean if you were expecting to find some that is... Otherwise, why would the absence need explaining?

Well here is where we get to the point that theists have defined God in an unfalsifiable manner.

Meaning that we would never find evidence that directly contradicts God if none exists.

This makes it extraordinarily hard to show positively or claim that God doesn't exist. What you would have to know to know a God doesn't exist anywhere in any form is remarkably complicated, as are proving negatives in general.

Which is why proving negatives is usually not required when we talk about burdens of proof. We lay them on the positive claim.

You are right however that the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence is that God doesn't exist. The difference between strong and weak atheism is how conclusive you feel about it. And, I have shown you why the agnostic theist position has to explain this lack of evidence away (making it a more complex position).

Weak atheism is just strong atheism with an open mind to the possibility of new evidence. We lack belief in God because it is not in evidence and it's lack of existence is the simplest explanation for events.

Positively stating that there is no God is the same explanation with more force behind it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Well here is where we get to the point that theists have defined God in an unfalsifiable manner.

Meaning that we would never find evidence that directly contradicts God if none exists.

WHich I suppose is to say that God makes no known practical difference to the world, if we cannot know him though realised effects. Which lends support to Deism (if we are to keep a God at all).

This makes it extraordinarily hard to show positively or claim that God doesn't exist. What you would have to know to know a God doesn't exist anywhere in any form is remarkably complicated, as are proving negatives in general.

I am not sure that negatives are so difficult to prove. After al a positive (P) is a negation of (-P). So the negative -(-P) is proven if we can prove P. But maybe that's the wrong way of conceptualising the situation.

Which is why proving negatives is usually not required when we talk about burdens of proof. We lay them on the positive claim.

Ok so I still think that we can demonstrate a negative eif the criterion is well established. Like "there are no horses on the stable", it is easy to demonstrate either way. It is whether the situation and criterion as srictly defined without loopholes. If we say "God responds to prayer" and make the null hypothesis zero variation in heart disease rates across groups, then according to the definition there is no response in that case. I think, if I have the terminology ("null hypothesis") right. So we have the operational definition of intervention, and if anything can be deduced from the results then so be it.

You are right however that the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence is that God doesn't exist.

Only where evidence would be expected.

The difference between strong and weak atheism is how conclusive you feel about it.

No, there is a logical difference. See 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.

And, I have shown you why the agnostic theist position has to explain this lack of evidence away (making it a more complex position).

Only within a certain hyothetico deductive setting. Where we definitively expect evidence.

 

[variant]

WHich I suppose is to say that God makes no known practical difference to the world, if we cannot know him though realised effects. Which lends support to Deism (if we are to keep a God at all).

It's more than that. I am saying that there is virtually no possible state of affairs that could disprove God's existence or count as conclusive evidence that no Gods exist.

I am not sure that negatives are so difficult to prove. After al a positive (P) is a negation of (-P). So the negative -(-P) is proven if we can prove P. But maybe that's the wrong way of conceptualising the situation.

Negatives are harder to prove in general, often still possible, but obviously more difficult. Especially if the information available is not complete.

Unfalsifiable negatives are quite impossible to disprove because they don't make predictions that will give us conclusive results.

Ok so I still think that we can demonstrate a negative eif the criterion is well established. Like "there are no horses on the stable", it is easy to demonstrate either way. It is whether the situation and criterion as srictly defined without loopholes. If we say "God responds to prayer" and make the null hypothesis zero variation in heart disease rates across groups, then according to the definition there is no response in that case. I think, if I have the terminology ("null hypothesis") right. So we have the operational definition of intervention, and if anything can be deduced from the results then so be it.

To conclusively evidence God via experimentation you would need to come up with a hypothesis that predicted a state of affairs that could only be true if God exists and demonstrate that experimentally and repeatably.

This sort of thing would remove support from the null hypothesis that "god doesn't exist" in the process.

Only where evidence would be expected.

Defining God in an unfalsifiable manner requires more skepticism not less.

Adding in unfalsifiable beings are definitely NOT the best recourse of explanation according to Occam.

All they do is add complexity and not usually much actual explanation (the ability to predict things).

Indeed an unfalsifiable being adds no explanation power to your philosophy, it just degrades you into sophism.

No, there is a logical difference. See 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.

It should be clear to you that I do not accept your analysis.

Only within a certain hyothetico deductive setting. Where we definitively expect evidence.

You always have to account for a lack of evidence when asserting things.

The theist position is an assertion of special classes of things which are automatically trimmed by the razor (because they are unnecessary).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It's more than that. I am saying that there is virtually no possible state of affairs that could disprove God's existence or count as conclusive evidence that no Gods exist.

I think it might be possible not to prove God but to have an epiphany, like Coleridge or Rousseau, or more conventional saints, which is not scientific, nor replicable, but demonstration inwardly. At least it is an empirical (experiential) basis for conviction.

IIRC Hegel summed up Romanticism as absolute inwardness.

Of course reason has been contrasted with emotion, but I think that emotion is an important part of cognition - otherwise why would it be naturally selected if it caused us to stray all the time? Maybe the capacity for religious experience is a spandrel, or maybe it is functional in some way but not veridical. Or maybe it indicates something beyond reliably. If it is caused by God, and it increases belief in the subject, then could the experience not be regarded as potentially "rational" justification, just as burning ones hand in fire is rational justification for something out there exists. God is one possible explanation for the gravitiational anomolies (cf dark matter) of religious experience.

"They're brain malfunction" is an assertion, and potentially true, but can you falsify that claim?

But anyway back to the thread...

Defining God in an unfalsifiable manner requires more skepticism not less.

I dont see why...Maybe if something is by nature unfalsifiable scientifically then its just hard luck for the scientists who cannot be omniscient. Who said that everything has to be falsifiable. There could easily be interacting dark particles, or higher dimensions of space which we will never be able to test for, and that's mainstream physics I think. Ok it blurrs into philosophy but that does not imply it is therefore a pipe dream.

Adding in unfalsifiable beings are definitely NOT the best recourse of explanation according to Occam.

I am not adding. I am just saying I don't deny them or assert them. Refrain from belief both ways. And lack belief in both options too. Maybe this stuff exists. Auto-skepticism seems to be a knee jerk response, a leap of faithlessness perhaps? Or is it what I am advocating?

All they do is add complexity and not usually much actual explanation (the ability to predict things).

That has been acknowledged but I say dont add them. Lack belief in their presense, but also their absence. I am still not convinced the latter is more "complicated" because "a lack of belief in absence of unfalsifiable entities" needs more explaining.

Indeed an unfalsifiable being adds no explanation power to your philosophy, it just degrades you into sophism.

So you're not a scientific realist then? (scientific realism is an unfalsifiable metaphysical position IIRC). It can be justified in terms of coherence, consistency, analogy, abduction and induction though. So unfalsifiable claims are not all justified by sophistry IMO. I am not saying Theology ticks all of these boxes, but it may mark some of them. For me it boils down in part, in the last anaylsis, to something akin to reading the tea leaves, these things become so blurred and sketchy. At which for me it is time to settle down and drink the tea of existence with a little sense of mystery. And perhaps try a different brand or too as I sojourn.

 

[variant]

I think it might be possible not to prove God but to have an epiphany, like Coleridge or Rousseau, or more conventional saints, which is not scientific, nor replicable, but demonstration inwardly. At least it is an empirical (experiential) basis for conviction.

IIRC Hegel summed up Romanticism as absolute inwardness.

Of course reason has been contrasted with emotion, but I think that emotion is an important part of cognition - otherwise why would it be naturally selected if it caused us to stray all the time? Maybe the capacity for religious experience is a spandrel, or maybe it is functional in some way but not veridical. Or maybe it indicates something beyond reliably. If it is caused by God, and it increases belief in the subject, then could the experience not be regarded as potentially "rational" justification, just as burning ones hand in fire is rational justification for something out there exists. God is one possible explanation for the gravitiational anomolies (cf dark matter) of religious experience.

"They're brain malfunction" is an assertion, and potentially true, but can you falsify that claim?

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?

I dont see why...Maybe if something is by nature unfalsifiable scientifically then its just hard luck for the scientists who cannot be omniscient. Who said that everything has to be falsifiable. There could easily be interacting dark particles, or higher dimensions of space which we will never be able to test for, and that's mainstream physics I think. Ok it blurrs into philosophy but that does not imply it is therefore a pipe dream.

I think you don't see because you are not paying attention to yourself.

Maybe if something is by nature unfalsifiable scientifically then its just hard luck for the scientists who cannot be omniscient

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".

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.

I am not adding. I am just saying I don't deny them or assert them. Refrain from belief both ways. And lack belief in both options too. Maybe this stuff exists. Auto-skepticism seems to be a knee jerk response, a leap of faithlessness perhaps? Or is it what I am advocating?

It would be easy if people like you were not constantly trying to find a good reason to think about Gods in the first place. We can only guess about your personal epiphanies on the matter, but it is clear that your allegiance is not to the simplest explanation that works.

Without the improperly posited unfalsifiable Gods we are not required to think about them at all.

Excluding them should only come as an evaluation of some indication that they exist in the first place.

We have no such indication, and if you are not willing to argue that point, then the lack of belief will always be the simplest answer.

That has been acknowledged but I say dont add them. Lack belief in their presense, but also their absence. I am still not convinced the latter is more "complicated" because "a lack of belief in absence of unfalsifiable entities" needs more explaining.

It doesn't require explanation at all. Positive belief in unfalsifiable entities are not justified in the least.

If something is unfalsifiable, then there is also no indication that it exists.

So you're not a scientific realist then? (scientific realism is an unfalsifiable metaphysical position IIRC). It can be justified in terms of coherence, consistency, analogy, abduction and induction though. So unfalsifiable claims are not all justified by sophistry IMO. I am not saying Theology ticks all of these boxes, but it may mark some of them. For me it boils down in part, in the last anaylsis, to something akin to reading the tea leaves, these things become so blurred and sketchy. At which for me it is time to settle down and drink the tea of existence with a little sense of mystery. And perhaps try a different brand or too as I sojourn.

Science (empiricism) is justified only based upon consistent outcomes, so no, I don't fit neatly into the term "scientific realist".

If another method can be justified based upon consistent outcomes then it is clearly something I can get behind.

 

[Tiberius]

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?

 

[KCfromNC]

3)

G-b (lack belief in God, weak athesism)

and finally

4)

-G-b (lack belief there is no God, what I call "an-atheism").

Atheists might say 3 is the simpler option but is 4 not as simple, but in fact rarely discussed or overtly stated as rational or parsimonious as 3?

Weak atheism is the combination of 3 & 4. Atheists in general agree with 3. To further differentiate them, you can ask the question in 4. If someone has belief that there is no God, they'd be a strong atheist. People who don't have this belief but at the same time still don't believe in god(s) are weak atheists.

And it is discussed quite a bit in the distinction between believing in no god and not believing in god (and by implication, lacking belief in the "no god" proposition).

I think the problem you're having is assuming 3 & 4 are mutually exclusive. They're not, 4 is just a way to tell the difference between strong and weak atheists.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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.

 

[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?