?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The principle of parsimony

« previous entry | next entry »
Jul. 1st, 2003 | 09:03 pm
mood: sillysilly

I'd recommend the incisive application of Occam's Razor.

Careful; you could lop off this entire discussion. Ockham was a theologian who chose not to apply his razor to religion; and he was probably right. In spiritual matters, there is little agreement of which entities have been needlessly multiplied. (I'd categorize myself as an absurdist mystic hedonist utilitarian, if you're wondering.)

most of our disputes are not about this principle but about what counts as necessary. To the materialist, dualists multiply pluralities unnecessarily. To the dualist, positing a mind as well as a body, is necessary. To atheists, positing God and a supernatural realm is to posit pluralities unnecessarily. To the theist, positing God is necessary. And so on. To von Daniken, perhaps, the facts make it necessary to posit extraterrestrials. To others, these aliens are unnecessary pluralities. In the end, maybe Occam's razor says little more than that for atheists God is unnecessary but for theists that is not true.

     - http://skepdic.com/occam.html

see also http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212684,00.html

I put it to you that you are both getting lost in false ontologies and discussing semantics rather than substance.

Of course, Ockham would have deleted THIS post I'm typing as well, but I leave it here in the hopes it may amuse you.

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {3}

Chef Monkey

(no subject)

from: chefmonkey
date: Jul. 2nd, 2003 03:58 pm (UTC)
Link

I like persimmon fruit, too. Normal knives work just as well as razors, though.

Reply | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Jul. 3rd, 2003 06:15 pm (UTC)
Link

We are all pre-simian fruits. And I keep my knives in bryce-codd normal form.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Triple Entendre

(no subject)

from: triple_entendre
date: Jul. 5th, 2003 08:16 pm (UTC)
Link

Funny thing is, his reply to this was to try to bait me into an argument about the meaning of the word 'religion'. Sheesh. Did he not even *read* what I wrote?

I haven't bothered to reply.

--
Triple Entendre

Reply | Thread