Occam's Razor

[samsara15]

How do we verify theories? Is religion a theory? Is Occam's Razor, or any other tool, suffiicient, in itself, to verify a theory? Is mathematics or logic sufficient, given that neither logic nor math necessarily connect to reality? Is a great debator superior to someone who is not a good debator, but makes a good case using reality instead of logic? How do we take in information, and confirm it as more or less valid, compared to other ideas?

I'm not sure which board this belongs on.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: samsara15 Is religion a theory?

No, theories are falsifiable.

[someguy]

Philosophers have been debating this for a really long time. Some argue sensory evidence is valid tool, some argue only logic and reasoning are valid. Some have proposed that beliefs (such as religious and spiritual) are valid in reasoning, and many say otherwise. And then there are many that fall under the "skeptic" category that say no theory (or very few theories) are verifiable because you cannot trust your sensory perception, or you don't even know if this existence is real.

The bottom line is this: your question probably wont be "answered" on this forum - or really anywhere for that matter. This is one of those questions where you will have to decide what makes the most sense to you. Whatever you decide, you will probably be in pretty good company with some very smart philosophers who think the same thing.

Oh, and about what Lullaby Chainer said...

As i was saying above, there are many different opinions about what types of things can or should count as evidence when considering if a theory is valid. However, it seems to me that if the only thing we are considering is if a theory is "falsifiable" or not, then religion should be considered a valid theory. I can think of examples where if a particular religious theory were not true, it could be proven not true. For example, if you believe in Christianity, and you die and end up in hell, and find out that actually Islam was the correct religion. Seems like that would pretty much prove that your Christian theory was not true, meaning that is falsifiable. Or you wouldn't even have to die - maybe some other God could just visit the earth and prove that religion.
Or if no religion exists, some philosopher could possibly come up with an air-tight argument showing no god exists (just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean its not possible - of course assuming that there is no god)

[Castle]

Quote by: samsara15 Is Occam's Razor, or any other tool, suffiicient, in itself, to verify a theory?

Occam's Razor? No. It is predictive in nature, not absolute. It is, however, sufficient to establish the order of reasonableness of several competing explanations for something.

Quote by: samsara15 Is mathematics or logic sufficient, given that neither logic nor math necessarily connect to reality?

Logic neccessarily is reality, provided the premises hold. Mathematics is also, provided you're actually representing real things.

[Vee]

remind me what Occam's Razor is again. Isn't it something about the principle of uncertainty?

[Castle]

Quote by: Vee remind me what Occam's Razor is again.

If multiple theories explain an event equally well, go with the simplest one (the one with the least number/most likely assumptions).
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Technosoul]

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

A Theory is a belief in a possiblity which sounds logical, but logic is very personal and often based on a persons background and whatnot. What seems logical for me personally might sound like hogwash to someone else, aka - trash and treasure. You might get turned on by one girl and see her as an angel from heaven, I might see her as a plain jane or as a tramp. It is all simply personal opinon or personal choice.

We have a lot of people with a diversity of backgrounds and so we have a diversity of opinons about which theories or beliefs or the best, most logical, or represent our reality with "just the facts, mam" (Dragnet).

Innocent people have ended up on death row because someone presented a well put theory about who done it. But presentation can sometimes be misleading and even deceptive, as we found out when Bush gave us his theory about Iraq and how they might endanger our national security.

The theory about God ( or gods and goddesses ) have been around from the start of written history, where as evolution and the Big Bang theory are new kids on the block (so to speak). Hard to teach old dogs new tricks, hope you do not mind me inserting some cornball "sayings" here but they make a point. Case in point - they say it took millions of years for a mammal to evolve from some older spices of life form, and so likewise it would take a long time for the complete transfromaton of one idea to be displaced by an new evolution of ideas. And how old is the Big Bang theory? Why it is just a baby compared to old ideas with white hair and long beards. Pee Wee verses Great Grandpa - who will win the contest - one guess.

It takes time for ideas to grow, mature, and to bear it's furits that are useful. If not the tree is worthless and it will wither away from existance. It is all about the "science of soul food". Yummy for the intellectual tummy ... but for the non-intellectual other "soul foods" might be more to the liking. Again - all personal in nature depending on ones stage of growth and ones background within this complex diversity called the human race.

The proof is in the pudding - you personally like it or you do not. It comes down to that one simple determinaton.

[Vee]

on that basis than God can't exist. Prove he exists. You can't. Therefore God doesn't exist

It doesn't matter whether you believe that or not but Occam's razor seems to be the reason ppl vacillate over whether declaring a theory valid or not.

Hmm, does that mean you can say Occam's razor leads directly to the sword of Damocles?

[Technosoul]

What is Occam's Razor is just a theory? Or based on "faith" in one type or means for determination?

Catch 22?

[Castle]

Quote by: Vee Prove he exists. You can't. Therefore God doesn't exist

Umm...what? How is this related to Occam's razor (It is a logical fallacy, argument from ignorance, though...)

Quote by: Vee Hmm, does that mean you can say Occam's razor leads directly to the sword of Damocles?

I've never heard of the sword of Damocles as a philosophical subject, and a quick search on wikipedia doesn't help; what is this 'sword of Damocles' of which you speak?

Quote by: Techno Soul What is Occam's Razor is just a theory?

It's justification is simplistic:
More assumptions introduce more room for error, and thus more chances that the explanation given is incorrect.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: samsara15 How do we verify theories?

We perform multiple experiments and examine the results. An hypothesis which is validated multiple times by independent research is (generally) considered a theory.

Theories are a little like automobiles.

They run, but you can still open the hood and tinker with them. There's room for argumentation and further fine tuning.

Is religion a theory?

Nope. Religion is institutionalized folklore usually with strong memetic arguments. Most religions encourage their members to defend it rather than question it.

Is Occam's Razor, or any other tool, suffiicient, in itself, to verify a theory?

I'm not sure what you mean by "any other tool". Occam's Razor, as mentioned, is a tendency, not a hard / fast rule.

If one hears hoofbeats, one thinks "horse" rather than "zebra"... Further investigation is still required to see what's making the sound.

Is mathematics or logic sufficient, given that neither logic nor math necessarily connect to reality?

Simply because we think of logic abstractly doesn't mean it's in any way disconnected from reality. Last time I checked, if you look at one tree next to another tree, it really does look like TWO trees (1+1=2).

Is a great debator superior to someone who is not a good debator, but makes a good case using reality instead of logic?

Depends on the argument. It sounds like you're opening the door for anecdotal evidence which is THE weakest form of evidence. Were you talking about something like:

Great debator: "There's no evidence miracles are possible."
not good debator: "Oh yeah!? Well, I almost died in a car crash, but I lived! That's a miracle."

How do we take in information, and confirm it as more or less valid, compared to other ideas?

Through logic & evidence.

[Vee]

I was using it as an example of theory to explain something. It is the simplest theory.

[Jack]

what is this 'sword of Damocles' of which you speak?

Damocles was an excessively flattering courtier in the court of Dionysius I of Syracuse, a 4th Century BC tyrant of Syracuse, Italy. He exclaimed that, as a great man of power and authority, Dionysius was truly fortunate. Dionysius offered to switch places with him for a day, so he could taste first hand that fortune. In the evening a banquet was held, where Damocles very much enjoyed being waited upon like a king. Only at the end of the meal did he look up and notice a sharpened sword hanging by a single piece of horsehair directly above his head. Immediately, he lost all taste for the fine foods and beautiful boys and asked leave of the tyrant, saying he no longer wanted to be so fortunate. The Sword of Damocles is a frequently used allusion to this tale, epitomizing the imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power. More generally, it is used to denote a precarious situation and sense of foreboding thereof, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance. Moreover, it can be seen as a lesson in the importance of understanding someone's experience.

Wikipedia

[Jakob]

Occams razor =/= Damocles' Sword

[Nathan Struth]

We verify theories by using them to make better ones:). A good theory is one that fits obeserved phenomena. Democritus's theory of the atom was soon modified by a more complex shrodinger wave theory. Sorry Occam Razer you're gone.

[Castle]

Quote by: Wikipedia The Sword of Damocles is a frequently used allusion to this tale, epitomizing the imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power. More generally, it is used to denote a precarious situation and sense of foreboding thereof, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance. Moreover, it can be seen as a lesson in the importance of understanding someone's experience.

That's not a philosophical concept, and in no way relates to Occam's Razor.

Quote by: Nathan Struth Sorry Occam Razer you're gone.

Occam's Razor only functions if the two competing explanations have equal explanative properties. But it still functions just fine.

[Jakob]

Actualy, Occam's razor doesn't call for the simplest theory, it calls for the simplest possible theory. A theory becomes impossible when it fails to explain and account for all observed phenomena. Really, it could quite logically call for a much more complex theory, dependant upon the data set from which one is drawing.

[Nathan Struth]

oh ok I get it.