Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Parsimony is not an educated guess.
|
True.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissle
It's not an analysis of probability.
|
False. This is precisely what the principle of parsimony is.
Quote:
principle of parsimony
Also called Ockham's Razor.
Principle that one should not multiply entities unnecessarily, or make further assumptions than are needed, and in general that one should pursue the simplest hypothesis.
Adoption of this principle, though seemingly obvious, leads to problems about the role of simplicity in science, especially when we are choosing between hypotheses that are not (or are not known to be) equivalent.
There are often different and clashing criteria for what is the simplest hypothesis, and it is not clear whether a simpler hypothesis is pro tanto more likely to be true; and if not, what justification other than laziness there is for adopting it.
|
Source
The principle of parsimony indicates that in a situation where multiple explanations of a phenomenon are possible, one should choose the least complex (simplest). This is, at it's essence, a statement of probability; it is essentially equivalent to stating that, all things being equal, complexity and probability are inversely proportional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
It's not even about finding answers. It's about what kind of answers you're willing to settle for! If, after your investigations, you have several theories that fit the data, you pick the simplest one because it's the simplest. Do you want to live a hard life or a simple life?
|
In a scientific context, one should never settle for any answers. If the evidence is inconclusive, one should state that. If the evidence correlates to a conclusion but does not prove it, one should state that. One should never settle for any sort of an answer or assume something to be true or false based solely on it's complexity.
In an objective evaluation, what one wants has nothing to do with the conclusions one draws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissle
It was never a method for determining anything, in and of itself, and it's not supposed to curtail investigation. To think this is to miss the point...
|
Precisely. You seem to be misunderstanding what this implies. One cannot simply choose the truth. I firmly believe that the truth in a theological context is beyond human grasp, but I do not take this as license for me to choose the answer I like best.
This is exactly why said principle does not apply in this discussion. We can use the principle of parsimony to inform a bias, but once that's done we cannot investigate the matter any further. There's no evidence to base any investigation on, and therefore application of the principle of parsimony doesn't lead to any progress towards an answer to questions theistic in nature.
Your problem stems from a misapplication of the principle of parsimony; you're trying to apply it after analysing the data, where in truth it should be applied before any analysis occurs. This is where your confusion lies.
I assure you that I have a full and complete understanding of the philosophic principles in play here, and based on past discourse I feel confident in stating that willravel does as well.