Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (1850)	10/19/2000 12:45:02 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Ah- I see the problem. You do not understand Occam's razor. It is that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. It is based on reason- it doesn't mean take the explanation with the least steps IF that requires something unproven, and unknown (like God). When Occam says the simplest explanation, he meant the simplest LOGICAL explanation- he wasn't using simple as a synonym for stupid.

To: Greg or e who wrote (1850)	10/19/2000 1:33:56 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

I am still not sure you understand Occam's razor- so I thought of a nice analogy for you. Two explanations for how cars are made: 1. metal and petrochemical products are processed into parts that then go to a factory where assembly workers put these parts together into cars 1. you rub a magic lamp and wish for one Superficiallly, if you do not understand Occam's razor, number 2 looks like the simplest answer. A child might even tell you it WAS the simplest answer- but Occam's razor requires us to look for explanations in terms of what is already known. So we are to rely on all the knowledge available, and our experience as well as the experience of others.