Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[donathos]

appolose said:

donathos said:

Here's my view of Occam's Razor:  (and this'll be fairly abstract; I'm aiming for clarity)

There are three data points that need explaining, A, B, and C.

Three different theories are proposed to explain them.  Theory 1 explains A & B, but does not explain C.  Theory 2 explains A, B and C, and also requires that we accept the yet unknown/unproven data point D.  Theory 3 explains A, B and C, and does not require data point D to be true.

I believe that Occam's Razor says that, based on these conditions and these alone (i.e. "all else being equal"), we give tentative agreement to Theory 3.

Theory 2 is complicated beyond necessity; data point D is clearly not needed to explain A, B & C, as Theory 3 demonstrates.  And so there is no need to invent data point D.

However, and speaking to my corollary, Theory 1 is "too simple."  It doesn't do what we need it to do, which is to explain all three of our given data points, and it too must be rejected in favor of Theory 3.

 

Now, like I've said, this is an epistemological exercise, not a metaphysical one: it may be the case that Theory 3 is false, and that data point D exists and Theory 2 is true.  It's just that, unless we have data point D, there is no call to take Theory 2 above Theory 3; we fit our working theory to the available evidence, no more and no less.

And so, let me try to directly answer your question as phrased:

But it does insist the most simply is the most likely, yes?

Not the most likely, exactly.  Just that the most simple solution is the only one we're justified in adopting.

 

Gar, I hate sounding "academic."  Does that make a lick of sense to anyone other than me? :)

But I do not see why the one that best explains the situation (without explaining enough or something else additionally) means we can only take that one as the one to assume.

Well, the value of Occam's Razor is predicated on certain things, like that the person involved is interested in discovering what is true in the world around him, or has goals which he'd like to accomplish, etc.--things which, based on the strict skepticism you've advocated, you're likely to dismiss as meaningless. :)  If a person doesn't care for those sorts of things, then obviously Occam's Razor ceases to have meaning (along with just about everything that could be discussed).

But, within the context of those things, here's my answer: you "can" do anything you'd like.  A person doesn't need a theory to only explain A, B & C -- he can develop one that incorporates an entire undiscovered alphabet of data should he like.  But Occam's Razor is concerned with what is "best" to do:

We live in a world with competing theories on various subjects, and we must choose which of those theories to adopt as our own.  The reason we must so choose is because 1) there are things that we want, and 2) we must make decisions.  When confronted with a situation in which we must make a choice, generally one choice will bring us closer to that which we want, others less so.

The choices we make will ultimately depend on what we believe to be true--the theories we've selected, whether consciously or unconsciously.  We are able to make "good" choices (leading us closer to what we want) in so far as our theories accurately describe reality.  The better our theories, the better our chances of making the right decisions.

For any set of data points that need an explanation (like my A, B & C), an infinite range of theories could be advanced to explain them, most of which will require some other letter or combination thereof, which are not known to be true, and may be false.  While there are no logical means to distinguish between a theory that insists on, say, M versus one that insists on P, the theory that explains A, B & C, no more and no less, has this going for it over all others: all of its data points are known to be true.

By fitting your theories to the known facts--incorporating all that which has been proven (A, B & C) while dismissing all that which has not (D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M...)--you are minimizing your exposure to error.  You are giving yourself the best possible chances, based on what is known, to make the right choices.

It's no guarantee for any given situation; with strict adherence, you can and will continue to make errors, as will everyone else (D sometimes ultimately proves true, at which point it is proper to adjust your theories accordingly).  But over a long enough life and a large enough number of decisions made, I believe that Occam's Razor will mean a smaller percentage of error overall than any strategy of blindly choosing "unproven letters" upon which to make your choices.