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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (34967)	4/16/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Re: Ockham's razor. Yes, but...... Ockham's razor has its limitations. Rarely is it appropriate in humanitarian disciplines, for example. Let us take history: most of the time the simplest explanation is NOT the right one. (It's usually not even interesting.) Joan

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (34967)	4/17/1999 12:59:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Logical Fallacies (and Ockham's razor) Can't help returning to this subject, Chuzzlewit. :-) The brouhaha about Ockham's razor began when you responded to the following post from Sidney: ....Because we don't know so many things we cannot say with assurance that God does not exist. So any assertion to the negative is more likely to be just prejudice while assertions to the positive are more likely to be true. The reason being that the believer is basing their belief on the knowledge of their experience on a personal level with God while the disbeliever is basing their assumption on a lack of knowledge about God. You began by pointing out, quite correctly, that there were several logical problems with Sidney's position. One specific logical fallacy that Sidney committed in the above post is the fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof", which is a special case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam". An assertion is made, and the burden of proof is placed on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The basic logical flaw here is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. Next, Chuzzlewit, you bring up Ockham's razor, and its use as a tool for deciding which of two hypotheses is more likely to be true. You say: ...Given a choice between two equally plausible explanations of a phenomenon one chooses the simpler. By invoking a supernatural explanation for the phenomena you are simply shifting the answer upstream. For not only must you try to explain how a deity accomplished a certain task, you must now grapple with questions concerning the nature and origin of the deity. That's why a scientist will always choose organic evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life over a "God's plan" type explanation. In the above passage, IMO, you too are guilty of at least one fallacy. I nominate: 1) The Red Herring Fallacy. Sidney was not talking about organic evolution vs. "God's plan". All he said was that he believed in God. Now, there are all kinds of ways of believing in God, and all kinds of concepts of God. And very few believers these days deny organic evolution; some even believe in an evolving God. (Have you read Teilhard de Chardin, incidentally?) So by introducing this issue, you have introduced a -- RED HERRING. And/Or: 2) The Straw Man fallacy. Attack an argument that the other person never made. And/Or: 3) The Bifurcation (or "Black and White") Fallacy. Present a situation as if it had only two alternatives, while in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. Example: either you believe in organic evolution, or you believe in "God's plan." Tsk, tsk, tsk! Joan