| It kind of depends on what you're hypothesizing. |  | ||
| Re: Re: How simple? -- Angus Cunningham | Post Reply |  |
Forum |
|
Posted by: crossbowman 01/18/2008, 16:24:35  (About author)
Edit |
In this setting, we argue about natural phemomena, political theory, social issues, etc. Occam's razor may apply if what you're doing is predicting human behavior - don't bet on the Communist Party of America winning the next presidential election. On the other hand, if what we're arguing is what should happen instead of what did happen or what will happen, it doesn't really apply. Simplicity has certain advantages among a range of potential solutions, but it is not always the best solution. As to your example, I guess it's a question of who's holding the razor. Your CERN supervisor has his facts, DW has his, so they're drawing conclusions from differing sets of facts. The problem isn't one of applying of Occam's razor to a set of facts. The problem is one of not agreeing on the starting facts. Your Cern supervisor is not accepting DW's data and so arrives at a different conclusion. If the inputs are different, the outputs are going to be different even if the methods used on them are identical. "Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts." WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring. |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
