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: jbe who wrote (34973)	4/16/1999 1:30:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, you said Let us say that Ockham's Razor works best in situations where you are looking for a single cause, or a single explanation. It works less well in situations where you anticipate many causes, and multiple explanations. I respectfully disagree. Mutually exclusive explanations are rarely encountered, and statistical analysis is a way to test that. But even here, the best approach is the simplest until the data force you to take a more complicated approach. That is the essence of Ockham's razor. I think your argument smacks of just the tiniest bit of disingenuousness. Esthetics is not the proper setting for Ockham's razor, and attempting to use it in literary criticism is like using a hammer to cut wood. Ockham's razor is designed to simplify analysis of situations where multiple, equally predictive hypotheses account for the available data. It is not a device intended for literary criticism. It is a tool used to simplify the inductive process -- nothing more. TTFN, CTC