Don’t worry, folks. Libertarian is just upset about a particulary robust application, sometimes called Occam’s chainsaw, that is often used to “prune” ontological arguments.
If a theory explains all the available data, by definition, nothing more is necessary to explain the data. Therefore, given the choice between two theories that each explain the data equally well, we must choose the simpler theory. If additional data comes along that cannot be explained by that theory, then a more complex theory must be adopted. The new theory, of course, must be the simplest that will explain the available data. Repeat as needed.
Thank you, Tom Bodett, but Libertarian is not upset.
Libertarian understands the context in which Ockham first invoked his Parsimony Principle, which was for the purpose of formulating ontological arguments. Perhaps Truth Seeker might sometimes presume to have “all the available data” when in fact he is missing some data that other people have. It is not always clear which theory is “simplest”, nor is it always clear whether a theory is simple or not.
Pardon me if I am being obtuse here, but isn’t President Carter still alive? If he felt there was some crucial issue missed in the debate, would he not have had ample time to publicize said issue? Now, if Carter had suddenly died in the middle of the debate I might be willing to listen, otherwise I suggest that EVERYBODY ought to climb back under his bridge.
[Carny barker voice]
So you say your razor is missing some truth the first time around, Bunky! Tell you what I’m gonna do! We got the NEW improved Occam TWIN-BLADE razor. No need to go back and get the data you missed the first time around. It cuts to the chase first time. You may have seen this advertised at $29.95, but … etc.
[/Carny barker voice]
I posted something to clarify my point yesterday, actually, but it didn’t go through because the board wasn’t responding. I forgot what I said, so I’ll just respond to this.
You’re right, but you’re not seeing what I’m trying to say. When forming an analysis, Occam’s razor encourages not to form an analysis with extraneous tidbits for no reason. Occam’s razor would encourage one not to say space aliens cut the broadcast, but WOULD NOT be used as a tool in determining who was right if two have different theories. It is a tool to be used in FORMING theories, not analyzing which is right.
I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Many people seem to think the occam’s razor meant, essentially, looking at 2 arguments and saying “Argument A is simpler. It’s probably right.”, which isn’t what it’s about. That’s what I assumed you were saying, and if not, then ignore my comment. If so, I clarified above.
“It is a tool to be used in FORMING theories, not analyzing which is right.”"
I was just looking at the thread asking whether something can come from nothing, and then this thread…
‘Nothing’ would be a perfect example of applying this system to determine falseness. Even assuming one offered an axiom stating that this is true (that something comes from nothing) – it is still NOTHING. Which means the entire ‘multiplier’ (I’d say addition in this case), is completely unecessary - as it doubles the number of paradoxes and calculations for every concept without actually explaining anything. It’s the ‘invisible pink unicorn’ times infinity; an absurd redundancy of infinite regress; doubling the workload, yeilding half the standard output.
““Bonus question… Has anyone investigated this incident?””
Never heard of it. I’m not aware that your research determined whether or not a transcript of this 27 minutes was released or not. If the camera was on Carter, it seems that a lip reader could have done the transcript (any lip reader), or anyone with a reasonably audiographic memory that was in the audience - not to mention any other recording devices present (were there any tape recorders or people taking notes)? It would be highly suspect if there was indeed not even a general summary of this 27 minutes by anyone. You would certainly have an actual conspiracy on your hands in that case.
Try using some image enhancement software on Carter’s lips; grabbing a lip reader you can trust (many deaf people read lips); who will transcribe the words – look for alterations in the video that could have digitally superimposed his actual lip motion.
Do some checking on Carter’s intelligence status and ranking - his intelligence exposure - to see if he even had access to this type of information to the degree you assume he spilled it out.
That’s still not completely relevant, as there are logical systems which can act as existential litmus tests for the phenomenal existence of concepts - but we’ll assume Carter didn’t possess this degree of insight or technology in '76.
As was noted in the GQ thread on this linked to above, a lip reader really wouldn’t have had anything to do. The candidates knew the sound was out, and they didn’t say anything until the problem was fixed:
But are there existential systems which can act as logical litmus tests for the conceptual existence of phenomena? And what about phenomenal litmus tests which act as conceptual systems of logic? And that’s not even mentioning logically existent phenomena which act as existential concepts.
“”"""""""“The first debate in Philadelphia was remembered for a 27-minute delay in which the sound on stage went dead. Neither candidate moved for fear he may be caught on camera in an unflattering pose. So for almost 30 minutes, the nation watched the two candidates standing mannequin-like at their podiums while the technical problems were fixed. – CNN AllPolitics 1976 Presidential Debates”""""""""
Ahh… details. You’re up a creek EVERYBODY. The amount of technology required on your end to make this case is most likely vastly superior to any intelligence that may have been involved if you are correct. You literally have to determine what Carter’s intent was, what others knew or surmized of his intent and what degree executive control was possessed by those who wished to cut the speech. Even then, you still have to determine if that was the actual reason the sound was cut.
“”""""“But are there existential systems which can act as logical litmus tests for the conceptual existence of phenomena?”"""""
Haven’t found any that work better than intuition; which is to say, “no”.
“”“And what about phenomenal litmus tests which act as conceptual systems of logic?”"""""
Such a thing cannot be grounded, one couldn’t even logically humor a result from such a system. This is akin to “mind is matter, what you think is what is - everything observant is being created by you”
“”“And that’s not even mentioning logically existent phenomena which act as existential concepts.”""
Anthropromorphism. I’m not sure you want to argue against this.
It uhh… well, is what we use to frame observations. Removing anthropromorphism is some serious stuff!
Ohhh… You’re mentioning my vagueness; of course, silly me.
Let’s take a look, shall we…
Existential: Variable of that which exists
existentially negative = cannot exist
existentially positive = can exist
phenomenal = is actually here, to the degree anyone might consider something as existing outside of a conceptual framework.
system = standardized meta-process (defined)
litmus test = process used to determine pH +/-
It is stating that there are means to derive if an concept actually has been created and does exist here in the real world. One can run extractions on a concept like: teleportation devices, and ding a positive phenomenal existence. This means… we have these damn things in the real world, not just on T.V. shows…
I have not been able to solve any problems which allow for the ability to conjure new conceptual framework outside of terms we already have — I haven’t isolated the invention process yet.
My poor gullible friend. You probably believe the following:
Carter and Ford did stand mannequin-line for those 27 minutes, but not for the obviously falsified reason they were afraid of being caught in an “unflattering pose.” Ye gods, standing like a piece of wood for 27 minutes is damn unflattering.
The real reason that they stood still for that long was because the CIA had turned their mind-control ray on both candidates, holding them still while their engrams containing the information about the CIA’s take-over of the world was erased from their brains.
You really don’t know much about Televsion remotes do you?
In Those wild technicolour years of the mid sixties to late 70’s there were no chipsets or fibre optic cable, no routers everything was patched and patching could mean hundreds of cables!
This is the 1970’s so we are talking Tubes, analouge mono feeds, Cameras the size of servers, and weighing more than a UPS. One accidental shot into a light and youhave to tear apart the camera to replace the tube. Studio productions were difficult and and live remotes were incredibly tricky. There were no vidoe cameras, most news was shot on film and put through the telecine.
A Mobile operation at the debate would and could easily have any number of flaws that may not be tracked or repaired quickly or easily. For example the feed from the mike could go to the on site control room but not to the Transmitter. The problem would not have been noticed by those running the even on site. If one cable was knocked out and repatched wrong, you could have a devil of a time figuring which one is right.
Trust me it is easier to believe a technical error created the audio drop out.
Hell, Gerry was the goddam PRESIDENT. They were going to say “Sorry, bigfoot, no walking around for you” ?
If you don’t know by now, lady, don’t mess with it.
Wow. If I knew Great Debates had these entertaining threads, I’d’a been hanging out around here more.
Occams Razor, also, the principle of parsimony: one should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain a phenomenon, or that a person should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
Occam’s Razor isn’t a hard and fast inassailable rule of logic, however, more a canon of construction, in that it may not be possible to demonstrate without doubt that given assumptions are or are not needed in an explanation. If this determination can’t be initially made it’s impossible to tell with certainty when the principle should be applied.
