Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal

The razor does not prevent people from simply making things up. I already gave you an example. I can produce a minimal astology--that does not make astrology a science.

Man, I'm telling you, you REALLY don't know what the razor is. Especially not if you think its use is to "make" science, or to "prevent people from" doing anything at all. However, violating the razor IS fantasizing. It is theorizing without justification.

Does that mean you agree that philosophy is unavoidable?

Sure. Does that mean you agree that philosophy, like breathing, is a bit beside the point if you wish to discuss the details of how science is technically done?

Man, I'm telling you, you REALLY don't know what the razor is. Especially not if you think its use is to "make" science, or to "prevent people from" doing anything at all. However, violating the razor IS fantasizing. It is theorizing without justification.

I will leave a space below for you to provide me with the Ockham transform I can apply to a given equation to demonstrate it's essential Ockhamic minimization.

....

Talk is cheap.

Go back and do some more reading on Ockham's razor. It really says little more than, "justify what you claim".

No, it does not,..., not even remotely. It says "given any two justifications of equal analytically demonstrated likelihood, choose the simpler answer with fewer terms."

natural sciences engage in an ongoing consensus about the gradiant of reliability of any given, widely accepted thesis

THAT is true. Persuasiveness is a subjective concept. However, that is NOT falsifiability. Falsifiability says NOTHING about the strength or persuasiveness of evidence. It is merely a recognition of what it takes for an explanation about observations to be at ALL informative. As an information-present-or-not-present criterion, it is a binary switch.

I will leave a space below for you to provide me with the Ockham transform I can apply to a given equation to demonstrate it's essential Ockhamic minimization.

You are wierd. I think you need to think on this awhile. I PROMISE you, you don't understand Ockham's razor.

The ether IS a falsifiable theory.

All right, lets look at another example. The copernican astronomical model replaced the ptolomaic astronomical model because copernican astronomy was easier to handle--more aesthetically appealing. There is nothing that's been falsified about the ptolomaic model. It simply fell out of favor because the later models were more useful. Falsification is NOT the same thing as Ockhamic minimization. You have meshed the two together and it is grinding up your brain, and making you say silly things. Please stop and breath for a second, and you may, hopefully, see what a strange hobbyhorse you've chosen to ride.

You are wierd. I think you need to think on this awhile. I PROMISE you, you don't understand Ockham's razor.

If it doesn't apply to equations that describe physical behavior, it hasn't, I again aver, likely got much to do with science as she is ground out in the lab.

Does that mean you agree that philosophy, like breathing, is a bit beside the point if you wish to discuss the details of how science is technically done?

Of course not. Neither, I think, do you. Can you imagine doing science without mathematics? Mathematics without logic? Logic without the laws of thought? You rapidly find yourself engaging in metaphysics let alone epistemology. Philosophy underpins and directs the course of everything we consciously choose to do, especially those choices that involve complex high level abstractions.

Whether you use philosophy isn't a choice you can make. You can, however, choose to try and understand it and make it rational rather than passively acting on whatever you soak up from people around you without regard for whether or not it makes sense. I mean, you CAN do that, but be forewarned that most such philosophy easily lives up to philosophy's reputation as being utter bu!!shit.

Falsification is NOT the same thing as Ockhamic minimization. You have meshed the two together

Of course they're not the same thing. I haven't "meshed" the two together. I'm merely trying to simultaneously explain two DIFFERENT concepts, neither of which you understand.

If it doesn't apply to equations that describe physical behavior, it hasn't, I again aver, likely got much to do with science as she is ground out in the lab.

Forget about falsifiability or Occam's razor for the time being. You don't even understand science. I have serious doubts about your understanding of "equations" as well.

Of course not. Neither, I think, do you. Can you imagine doing science without mathematics? Mathematics without logic? Logic without the laws of thought? You rapidly find yourself engaging in metaphysics let alone epistemology. Philosophy underpins and directs the course of everything we consciously choose to do, especially those choices that involve complex high level abstractions.

And you can't do any of this if you don't breath. Therefore, breathing is an essential issue in resolving the question of whether or not Ockham's razor and and Popperian falsifiability are the same thing. Both require breathing to be of use--both require a philosophy of science in order to be notions about something. However, that does not make them identical any more than mutual breathing by their advocates makes them identical.

You don't even understand science. I have serious doubts about your understanding of "equations" as well.

Uh huh. Tell me again how the razor says: "justify what you claim." Kindly include some quote from Ockham to suggest it is anything other than what I claimed--an intellectual minimization scheme. Contrary to what you have just now claimed, you have demonstrated very clearly a confusion between the razor and Popperian falsifiability. If that is now cleared up, I am happy for you, but I don't hardly solicit a refresher on either one from someone who seems to be confused about what he has just finished saying.

Forget about falsifiability or Occam's razor for the time being. You don't even understand science. I have serious doubts about your understanding of "equations" as well.

Very well, kindly elucidate how the razor machine distinguises between two equations that one might choose to describe a given behavior? How can the razor be applied by a computer to choose between, say, the copernican description of the moon's orbit, and the ptolomaic description of the moon's orbit? Or do you claim science is above such mundane chores as choosing how to describe orbits?

However, that is NOT falsifiability. Falsifiability says NOTHING about the strength or persuasiveness of evidence. It is merely a recognition of what it takes for an explanation about observations to be at ALL informative. As an information-present-or-not-present criterion, it is a binary switch.

It is not as you aver.

Refuting experiments come only in gradiants of reliability. There is no binary switch, even at rock bottom, because levels_of_reliability is an analog, subjective call, mediated by a consensus of the most interested and competent parties. And this consensus is not guaranteed to exist, or to be a reliable indication of Truth, for any given issue.

Falsifiability is exactly about the strength of the evidence.

that does not make them identical

Actually, nothing makes them identical. I don't know anyone who suggested they were.

I don't know what you're smoking, but once you start making sense, we can continue this discussion.

Very well, kindly elucidate how the razor machine distinguises between two equations that one might choose to describe a given behavior? How can the razor be applied by a computer to choose between, say, the copernican description of the moon's orbit, and the ptolomaic description of the moon's orbit? Or do you claim science is above such mundane chores as choosing how to describe orbits?

Please. Just take 2 hours out of your life, go read up on falsifiability. Also read up on Occam's razor (a different concept). I promise you that when you are done, you will realize that the above paragraph is such utter gibberish as to be completely unanswerable. (It also reveals, as do a few of your other posts, that you are not reading my complete responses.)

I don't know what you're smoking, but once you start making sense, we can continue this discussion.

Was it you, or someone else posting under the nom d' plume of "beavus" who wrote?:

"...Ockham's razor. It really says little more than, "justify what you claim".

???

There seems to be some confusion here. Occam's razor neither asserts the correctness of a hypothesis nor does it say anything about falsifiability. It is applicable, but most people use it very badly because they don't understand the assumptions/premises required for rigorous usage (which seems to be happening here). That said, "Occam's Razor" can be formulated as a rigorous mathematical construct and you can find mathematical proofs of its essence. There are quite a number of mathematics papers on it relating to certain domains of information theory, where it is recognizable as an important facet of Kolmogorov information theory.

In short: Occam's razor makes assertions about relative rationality, but says absolutely nothing about correctness. Most people miss this point because they equate the two. Something can be rational and incorrect, and vice versa, without creating any contradiction, a common artifact when dealing with finite systems.

Please. Just take 2 hours out of your life, go read up on falsifiability. Also read up on Occam's razor (a different concept). I promise you that when you are done, you will realize that the above paragraph is such utter gibberish as to be completely unanswerable. (It also reveals, as do a few of your other posts, that you are not reading my complete responses.)

I have asked you to acknowledge what you have said. It is not gibberish, and it is not rocket science. Neither is asking you to demonstrate the use of the razor on a specific example involving, god forbid, math. My suggestions that you have contradicting yourself, and that you can't make a technical arguement about how science is done that doesn't, in some manner, apply to mathematical descriptions, is not really adequately answered by patronizing your deponent.