Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
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.
|
1. Simple, or at least it's simple for me. Logic class was way too easy for me.
If you have
"If A and B, then C" (call this P1)
and you have
"If C and D, then E" (call this P2)
and you presume A, B, and D, then:
Since A and B are true, then you use P1 to get C.
Now you have A, B, C, and D.
Since C and D are true, then you use P2 to get E.
Voila!
2. But that is the equivalent of saying that you have no sense data at all, which is not what we are discussing. We have no 100% trustable sense data.
To include my second edit: "Please remember that Occam's Razor applies to of the available explanations and considering the available data. I suspect that the source of your problem with it may be in there somewhere."
|
1. Oh, so you're not giving a 3-premise argument (that's what I was confused by); your simply restating a conclusion/premise as it's two premesis. In any case, it's still a question of if your premesis are true, so forgetting what came before originally wouldn't affect the logic, unless your restating them all at the same time, and in that case, you wouldn't have to rely on memory.
2. We have no data that is even 1% trustable; that's what I'm saying. Data can support anything you want it to, because it doesn't speak for itself (as we agreed).
I'm not quite sure what your edit does to the situations.
|
1. But see, the "If A, B, and D, then E" argument hinges on the previously proven "If A and B, then C". So if however that was proven is erroneous, then it all falls apart. I'm presuming that there's more work behind it than sheer assumption; that the simple thing stated here is not the whole story. And in any case who said short term memory was safe? 
2. Okay fine, it's 0% trustable. But the evidence still exists. As opposed to having absolutely no information, regardless of quality, available.
3. Your objection to Occam's Razor was "it doesn't follow that the idea that assumes the least amount of statements is the most likey correct, because it is unknown if reality, in reality (lol), depends on only a few things or a trillion things (or infinite things)." It seemed to me that you were saying 'but there could be completely unknown things that are unaccounted for that could make the Occam's Razor choice a worse one'. And that is an inapplicable objection because OR concerns itself only with choosing considering the available data. And other, more complete explanations may exist that account for this hypothetical data but again OR is only for choosing among the available explanations. At the time of the choice, OR is a guideline to the best explanation but is not guaranteed to be right.
Does the expanded version help any?
|
Ah, sorry about that, Final. I didn't see this up here... rats, I thought the conversation had died.
Perhaps we can drop points 1 and 3; we don't seem to be getting anywhere with point 1, and it won't matter who's right about it, since if point 2 supports you or me, it encompasses point 1. For three, same thing, I think. And I just finished it with Donathos.
2. By being 0% trustable, I mean sense data is evidence of any and every possible interpretation. One cannot get around even the simple and trite possibility of the Matrix, for instance. In this scenario, everyone has the same sense data experience now, yet they all believe something totally false, and there's no indication otherwise. Certainly, there are many possibilities, simple or complex, but this one is particularly clear. What test can one impose, what consistency can one measure, what law can you formulate? The nature of reailty would be entirely beyond one's grasp, and left to the control of something completely unknown.
Pardon me if I'm being redundant with respect to previous points; I feel the need to reuse and restate somethings.
