Is occams razor "double edged"?

[quatona]

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´m not even taking the claim so serious that I feel I need to form an opinion or acquire a position. My inner reaction is kind of "Uuhm, whatever." or "Until you can come up with something that makes this claim worth my considerations, I´m not wasting my time with this question."
Don´t know if you consider this weaker or stronger than the options you have offered. Personally, I´d say it is formally weaker but effectively a stronger, more decisive rejection.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I´m not even taking the claim so serious

Why not its a possibly existence and it cant be refuted. You seem to be arguing from idnorance: you know of no dragons therefore they dont exist. That belief is also probably based on a generalisation form life as we know it, and the fact that in the universe as we know it simpler lifeforms are more probable than complex ones. So you have a fair inductive backing too.

Although I do quite not believe Lewis' Modal Realism I cannot refute it, and have not read his book actually, therefore I am in thory epistemologically open to the idea of dragons etc in other possible worlds. There may be an infinite set of worlds our there, with infinite sets of physical laws. A few thousand years ago cosmology was limited to the 7 heavens. Today we know that there are billions of galaxies. Maybe in another thousand years time we will believe in 'trillions of multiverses'.

that I feel I need to form an opinion or acquire a position.

Ok.

My inner reaction is kind of "Uuhm, whatever."

But as a man of science surely you ought to know that inner reactions are not regarded as reliable evidence, and may not be reliable philosophically unless your subconscious is well trained. Than again I do like romanticism's absolute inwardness.

or "Until you can come up with something that makes this claim worth my considerations, I´m not wasting my time with this question."

Well I just think that the universe we know may be so limited that there could well be dragons out there somewhere which we do not know of presently. Even scientists are talking about infinite universes in a multiverse. Perhaps in one of those something at least dragon like (to a satisfactory degree) exists. I am not arguing from ignorance that they do, it is just I cannot rule it out so I .... lack belief in their nonexistence.

 

[quatona]

Why not its a possibly existence and it cant be refuted.

I would need to learn that and how this claim has any relevance, significance in my life.

You seem to be arguing from idnorance: you know of no dragons therefore they dont exist.

I´m not arguing at all. I am describing my inner attitude.

That belief is also probably based on a generalisation form life as we know it, and the fact that in the universe as we know it simpler lifeforms are more probable than complex ones. So you have a fair inductive backing too.

I don´t even need any "backing" (apart from the fact that I don´t see my inner processes correctly described in your induction).

Although I do quite not believe Lewis' Modal Realism I cannot refute it, and have not read his book actually, therefore I am in thory epistemologically open to the idea of dragons etc in other possible worlds. There may be an infinite set of worlds our there, with infinite sets of physical laws. A few thousand years ago cosmology was limited to the 7 heavens. Today we know that there are billions of galaxies. Maybe in another thousand years time we will believe in 'trillions of multiverses'.

How would that be supposed to affect me?

But as a man of science surely you ought to know that inner reactions are not regarded as reliable evidence, and may not be reliable philosophically unless your subconscious is well trained.

1. I´m not a man of science - not at all.
2. Since I am not postulating anything about dragons, in the first place, I am not sure how "evidence" is part of the equation.
3. But since you mention it: There must be reason why science rarely even only deals with the idea that dragons exist.

Well I just think that the universe we know may be so limited that there could well be dragons out there somewhere which we do not know of presently. Even scientists are talking about infinite universes in a multiverse. Perhaps in one of those something at least dragon like (to a satisfactory degree) exists. I am not arguing from ignorance that they do, it is just I cannot rule it out so I .... lack belief in their nonexistence.

And I don´t even start arguing about claims that don´t involve any relevance or significance for the world I live in.
Acknowledging or refusing the possibility makes no difference whatsoever to anything. It´s a purely academic difference.
Whether I acknowledge the possibility that there is a parallel universe in which dragons exist, whether I deny the possibility, whether I refuse to even entertain the idea - my life remains unaffected not only by them dragons but also by my position towards them.
You know, the attempt to get along in the world I live in already keeps me sufficiently busy - I´m not bored to the degree that I feel the need to occupy my mind with worlds that I don´t live in and that don´t affect my world.

A main function of my brain is to filter out information that´s irrelevant. I greatly appreciate this function.

 

[Received]

With C, I don't bother to believe in things which cannot be shown to be true or false.

Does that include the principle of falsifiability?

 

[sandwiches]

Does that include the principle of falsifiability?

The principle of falsifiability is roughly that claims which could not be shown to be false in some way are not scientific. As such, his is merely a definition of "scientific." Definitions aren't scientific claims and thus aren't required to be falsifiable.

 

[Tiberius]

Growing Smaller, please don't forget my last post. Can you tell me what you mean by "coherent definition" please.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A coherent definiton to me means it is a valid statement in english rather than gibberish, and is not a contradiction in terms. I will add that isf something is defined as a physical object then by default it as assumed that it is as much subject to physical processes as any other such object (by analogy and coherence of application of the term physical - ie consistent and unified with other applications of the term). So a physical dragon would not be able to escape the law of gravity if it had mass.

 

[Tiberius]

A coherent definiton to me means it is a valid statement in english rather than gibberish, and is not a contradiction in terms. I will add that isf something is defined as a physical object then by default it as assumed that it is as much subject to physical processes as any other such object (by analogy and coherence of application of the term physical - ie consistent and unified with other applications of the term). So a physical dragon would not be able to escape the law of gravity if it had mass.

Is it possible to have a coherent definition of God?

 

[KCfromNC]

Is it possible to have a coherent definition of God?

Yes, of course. But that makes those gods easier to disprove, so we tend to see them very infrequently.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

lol no sugars needed with that one.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that God can be defined coherently yes, I am not an ignostic or a non cognitivist.

 

[quatona]

Just a short reminder that it´s words that can be defined, not things/entities/concepts.

 

[Tiberius]

I think that God can be defined coherently yes, I am not an ignostic or a non cognitivist.

Can you provide a definition of God that is not contradictory?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Actuallt I am not a theologian or skilled in this debate area. I will have to accept not defeat bnut that I cannot really be bothered trying. I dont think its that relevant to the thread though, as it would be a derail from the initial specific theme. But thanks for the offer!

 

[Tiberius]

Actuallt I am not a theologian or skilled in this debate area. I will have to accept not defeat bnut that I cannot really be bothered trying. I dont think its that relevant to the thread though, as it would be a derail from the initial specific theme. But thanks for the offer!

I don't think it's a derail. We're talking about saying that we should be open to the possibility of unknown entities as part of occam's razor, but only if they are logically possible; ie, not contradictory.

Unless it can be shown that God is a coherent and non-contradictory being, I don't see why we should accept it at all.

 

[Neochristian]

It is a principle, not a law. It does not say that simplicity is truth. In fact, reality is quite complicated. Also, I think people reject a non-materialistic aspect of reality not based on the razor, but because they have never observed anything of it.