Closer to man made new life forms:

Originally posted by humy

You forget that Occam's razor is only a guide and not foolproof.

No I don't. And I personally wouldn't describe it as it being merely “only a guide” but rather often the only sane intellectual tool we have to rationally (and sanely) assess the probabilities of two or more competing hypotheses that are proposed to explain the same set of observations.

That is why you are deceived into believing a lie.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is why you are deceived into believing a lie.

The Instructor

even if flawless logic (and Occam's razor is only part of flawless logic) just happens to lead us rational people into believing a falsehood (which it can because even flawless logic can be probabilistic. Flawless logic does not equate with logic that always gives us the truth), that would not be a lie but rather a highly improbable falsehood that we were lead to rationally believe. A lie requires deliberate deceit.

Flawless logic can give us the most probable truth while religious faith wouldn't. That does not guarantee that flawless logic will give use the truth, because it is probabilistic, but, nevertheless, flawless logic is the best intellectual tool and the only sane tool we have to find highly probable truths and you would be irrational to not use it and you would certainly be irrational to substitute it with religious faith.

What is needed for settling questions in this forum is irrefutably flawless and infallibly inflatable floating logic.

The so called flawless shave and haircut only exists as a theoretical framework... it has never actually been proven.

Originally posted by humy
even if flawless logic (and Occam's razor is only part of flawless logic) just happens to lead us rational people into believing a falsehood (which it can because even flawless logic can be probabilistic. Flawless logic does not equate with logic that always gives us the truth), that would not be a lie but rather a highly improbable falsehood that we wer ...[text shortened]... nal to not use it and you would certainly be irrational to substitute it with religious faith.

Occam's Razor is not a part of flawless logic. It is only a man-made princlple that is normally correct. It is like the principles developed for chess which are normally correct to follow, but do not always give the best results.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Occam's Razor is not a part of flawless logic. It is only a man-made princlple that is normally correct. It is like the principles developed for chess which are normally correct to follow, but do not always give the best results.

The Instructor

Occam's Razor is not a part of flawless logic.

Obviously, that is false. One implication of Occam's razor is that, if we have two hypotheses, X and Y, that explain exactly the same set of observations and X only differs from Y by making an extra assumption that is not required to explain that set of observations, nor any other set of observations, then, with all else being equal, it can only be rational to believe Y is much more likely to be entirely true than X being entirely true because we have no rational reason to assume that unnecessary extra assumption that X has purely on the bases of observations.
It would be extremely hard for any rational sane person to disagree with that logic. For example, if you observe smoke, then, out of the two hypotheses X of “fire is causing that smoke and an arsonist started that fire”, when there is no observation to support that accusation in X, and Y of “fire is causing that smoke”, hypothesis Y should be considered much more likely than X. This is obviously part of flawless logic -unless you would absurdly claim that X is just as probable as Y?

Occam's razor has several other sub-implications similar to the above one and each and every one of them can be explained like the above so that it would be extremely hard for any rational sane person to disagree with their logic. So we can safely say Occam's razor is part of flawless logic.

Nobody is claiming that Occam's razor always leads to the correct hypothesis, because, although it usually leads to the right hypothesis, it sometimes doesn't. But Occam's razor does always leads to what should be regarded by any rational intelligent mind as the most probable hypothesis given our finite observations and knowledge thus it is still part of flawless logic and, specifically, the part of the flawless logic used to judge which hypothesis is more probable than which other hypothesis.

Originally posted by humy

Occam's Razor is not a part of flawless logic.

Obviously, that is false. One implication of Occam's razor is that, if we have two hypotheses, X and Y, that explain exactly the same set of observations and X only differs from Y by making an extra assumption that is not required to explain that set of observations, nor any other set of obse awless logic used to judge which hypothesis is more probable than which other hypothesis.

I attempted to look up flawless logic and the following is the only definition on the WWW:

flawless logic isn't defined yet.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAWLESS LOGIC

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flawless%20logic

Also the following is what I found on Occam's razor:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham, and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving.

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

IT SAYS THE SIMPLEST THEORY NEED NOT BE MOST ACCURATE AND THE MEANING OF SIMPLEST MAY BE NUANCED.


In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

IT SAYS IN SCIENCE, OCCAM'S RAZOR IS ONLY USED AS A GENERAL GUIDING RULE.

IT ALSO SAYS IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, OCCAM'S RAZOR IS NOT AN IRREFUTABLE PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC.

THERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. SPANKY!

AS IS SEEN FROM THE ARTICLE, OCCAM'S RAZOR IS JUST A PRINCIPLE USED IN LOGIC AND IN SCIENCE IT IS JUST A GUIDING RULE AND IS NOT A IRREFUTABLE PRINCIPLE OF LOGIC USED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SO WE CAN FORGET ABOUT YOUR FLAWLESS LOGIC, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. CASE CLOSED.

The Instructor 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I attempted to look up flawless logic and the following is the only definition on the WWW:

[b]flawless logic isn't defined yet.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAWLESS LOGIC

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flawless%20logic

Also the following is what I found on Occam's razor:

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from Wil R FLAWLESS LOGIC, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. CASE CLOSED.[/b]

The Instructor 😏[/b]

I see, from your totally irrelevant response, you have just simply moronically ignored everything I said in my post yet again.
Perhaps you might consider reading my post before responding to it instead of being such a jerk?

flawless logic isn't defined yet.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAWLESS LOGIC

Don't be stupid. Just because something isn't defined over the net yet does not mean it doesn't exist.
Volcanoes existed just fine before they were defined on the internet. Likewise both flawless logic and flawed logic exists just fine regardless of whether either are defined on the internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flawless%20logic

stupid. As if a silly dictionary like that would define something like “flawless logic”! Try entering “chess forum” in that same dictionary and you see it also doesn't define that. So this chess forum doesn't exist?

If there is an occurrence of somebodies thinking with logic that contains no error no matter how subtle, then, for that instance, that person has just had a bit of flawless logic.

And, what about pure deductive logic that contains no errors and doesn't use Occam's razor? that would be an example of flawless logic that is not probabilistic unlike flawless logic that uses Occam's razor thus is probabilistic.
So how on earth could such pure deductive logic without errors NOT be flawless logic? -answer, it IS flawless logic thus, contrary to your claim, flawless logic MUST exist!

As for the rest of your moronic post, yes, we already know that Occam’s razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic for, as I (along with some others here) have basically been telling you time and time again, it is not supposed to guarantee giving you the correct hypothesis because it is supposed to be probabilistic. Nevertheless, it is part of flawless logic, specifically flawless logic for giving the most probable hypothesis given the limited information we have available -the operative word here is “probable“. The conclusions of this logic are probabilistic thus the conclusions can sometimes be wrong but, the logic itself is flawless because there is no alternative logic you can use which would be rational or sane logic to use for its application.

You would be a moron to reject Occam's razor. In fact, whether you like it or not, you cannot for you use Occam's razor in everyday life. The only few people that don't use it in every day life would have to be constantly extremely confused or very severely mentally disabled or both! The only time you selectively reject Occam's razor is when it conflicts with your religion.

Originally posted by humy
I see, from your totally irrelevant response, you have just simply moronically ignored everything I said in my post yet again.
Perhaps you might consider reading my post before responding to it instead of being such a jerk?

flawless logic isn't defined yet.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLAWLESS LOGIC

Don't be stupid. Just because som ...[text shortened]... time you selectively reject Occam's razor is when it conflicts with your religion.

You are constantly using strawman arguments as a diversion. Okay, I'll accept the premise that no definition for "flawless logic" does no mean it don't exist. Maybe God has flawless logic. Or maybe I have flawless logic when I say, "I am right and you are wrong." That also seems to meet the requirements of the Occam's razor principle, because it is the simplest theory from my point of view. However, you know an honest person should reject any principle, if it is contrary to the truth.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are constantly using strawman arguments as a diversion. Okay, I'll accept the premise that no definition for "flawless logic" does no mean it don't exist. Maybe God has flawless logic. Or maybe I have flawless logic when I say, "I am right and you are wrong." That also seems to meet the requirements of the Occam's razor principle, because it is the sim ...[text shortened]... est person should reject any principle, if it is contrary to the truth.

The Instructor

Or maybe I have flawless logic when I say, "I am right and you are wrong." That also seems to meet the requirements of the Occam's razor principle, because it is the simplest theory from my point of view.

the above statement demonstrates your total ignorance of Occam's razor. For starters, Occam's razor is not about recommending the 'simplest' theory (an extremely common and dreadful misconception). It would be better to say that Occam's razor is about recommending the 'least assumptive' theory which would actually sometimes can be and sometimes is the more 'complex' theory! There are plenty of examples of that!
Secondly, even if how 'simple' a theory is was relevant, how would "I am right and you are wrong" be more or less 'simpler' than "I am wrong and you are right" from your “point of view”?

Occam called and wants his razor back.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are constantly using strawman arguments as a diversion. Okay, I'll accept the premise that no definition for "flawless logic" does no mean it don't exist. Maybe God has flawless logic. Or maybe I have flawless logic when I say, "I am right and you are wrong." That also seems to meet the requirements of the Occam's razor principle, because it is the sim ...[text shortened]... est person should reject any principle, if it is contrary to the truth.

The Instructor

Therefore, you are not an honest person.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Therefore, you are not an honest person.

I do not consider you a good judge because, on the Spirituality Forum, you have already been shown to be one with the smallest amount of common sense and half a brain.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy

Or maybe I have flawless logic when I say, "I am right and you are wrong." That also seems to meet the requirements of the Occam's razor principle, because it is the simplest theory from my point of view.

the above statement demonstrates your total ignorance of Occam's razor. For starters, Occam's razor is not about recommending the 'simp ...[text shortened]... ess 'simpler' than "I am wrong and you are right" from your “point of view”?

Now you are trying to use some sort of linguistic trickery to get out of you predicament. It will not work with me for I see through your deception. It should be expected, even from one with the smallest amount of common sense and half a brain, that from my point of view that "I am right and you are wrong" would be the simpler because we are not looking at it from your point of view.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now you are trying to use some sort of linguistic trickery to get out of you predicament. It will not work with me for I see through your deception. It should be expected, even from one with the smallest amount of common sense and half a brain, that from my point of view that "I am right and you are wrong" would be the simpler because we are not looking at it from your point of view.

The Instructor

from my point of view that "I am right and you are wrong" would be the simpler because we are not looking at it from your point of view.

that makes no sense; In logic, what does who's “point of view” you “look at it from” got to do with how 'simple' a theory is?
Yet again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of logic.

Originally posted by humy

from my point of view that "I am right and you are wrong" would be the simpler because we are not looking at it from your point of view.

that makes no sense; In logic, what does who's “point of view” you “look at it from” got to do with how 'simple' a theory is?
Yet again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of logic.

Well, the point of view makes a big difference and must be correct to ensure the logic produces the true conclusion. That is, if the postulate or axiom is not correct, then no matter how good is your logic, you will not come to the right conclusion. So you will be wrong.

The Instructor