Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
Yeah, that's not exactly accurate. You have to define what you mean by "simplicity". The definition is more accurately stated using the word parsimonious in place of "simplicity", and it's a heuristic, not a law. It's often wrong (Newtonian mechanics uses less ontological categories than Einsteinian mechanics, for example).
It's an interesting topic if you are interested in anything more than a slogan to post on the Internet:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case, the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
Yeah, that's not exactly accurate. You have to define what you mean by "simplicity". The definition is more accurately stated using the word parsimonious in place of "simplicity", and it's a heuristic, not a law. It's often wrong (Newtonian mechanics uses less ontological categories than Einsteinian mechanics, for example).
It's an interesting topic if you are interested in anything more than a slogan to post on the Internet:
I'm starting to genuinely suspect that you're one of those Fed "agitators" out on the internet to stir up radicals. Nobody is this stupid.
I am stupid?
Stupifyingly dense. Inconceivably dogmatic. Intentionally unknkowing, and dedicated to distracting and distorting any reasonable conversation or debate on this board, yes. Stupid.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
I'm starting to genuinely suspect that you're one of those Fed "agitators" out on the internet to stir up radicals. Nobody is this stupid.
I am stupid?
Stupifyingly dense. Inconceivably dogmatic. Intentionally unknkowing, and dedicated to distracting and distorting any reasonable conversation or debate on this board, yes. Stupid.
Maybe if you contributed more rational content, it wouldn't be assumed you cannot reason.
Stupifyingly dense. Inconceivably dogmatic. Intentionally unknkowing, and dedicated to distracting and distorting any reasonable conversation or debate on this board, yes. Stupid.
Maybe if you contributed more rational content, it wouldn't be assumed you cannot reason.
Well, ya know, there's that last page there, before you jammed your fingers in the middle to troll over Occam's Razor. You clearly didn't even comprehend the topic at hand, yet felt the need to enlighten us with your wisdom. Thank you for that.
