Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
1. So, you're saying, for example, if I had proved "If A and B, then C", but then thought to myself that I had proven "D" and moved onto "If D and E, then F", correct? Then that still wouldn't matter because in the second argument it's still an "if" (because whatever premesis I thought I had used to reach that were "if"s as well).
2. Since it's the latter of the situations, yeah, you'd have to pick a direction (well, not really), but whatever way you picked you would have absolutely no reason to have picked it. Same thing in this situation. If you want to make a statement about reality, you're going to have pick a method of truth with no indication (we're dizzy and it's foggy).
It's the principle in Occam's razor I find to be wrong. It's not necessarily true that the simplest explanation that works as well as the others is most likely because it's unknown how complex the explanation really is.
|
1. No, I was thinking that you'd previously proved "If A and B, then C" and were proving "If C and D, then E" and were going to conclude "If A, B, and D, then E" but you have no way of knowing if the first proof is really valid just because you remember it being valid.
2. Incorrect. You don't KNOW which way is up, but there is a direction that you THINK is up. The indication is not guaranteed but it is there.
/facepalm "not necessarily" is the reason it's only likely. There's a perfectly good criticism to make here, now that I think about it, but I don't think you are making it.
|
1. Wait, "If A, B, and D, then E"... How would that even work?
2. There is no direction you think is up; you're totally dizzy, it's completely foggy, you have absolutely no indication which way is up. You have to take a wild guess. Just as it is, I'm saying, to take empiricism.
Occam's razor says the least complex explanation must be the most likely, and that's what I meant was not necessarily true. And no, you could not say it's likely that the least complex is likely, either; nothing indicates that possibility.
