Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
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.
|
You're
begging the question, here. You think that parsimony is the inverse relationship of complexity and
probability (if I understand your current use of this term) because you're assuming that parsimony is a statement on how likely an hypothesis will be true.
Quote:
|
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.
|
When I say "settle" I don't mean "settle for all time." We have scientific theories but, by definition, they're all tentative. In other words, there exists scientific theories, so we've settled for some explanations, but we're willing to scrap them for new ones once we get contradicting data, so we haven't settled for them, permanently.
I never claimed that one should settle for answers "based solely on it's complexity." It's statements like these that make me think you're going for rhetoric rather than honest communication. Are you even trying to understand my point?
Quote:
|
In an objective evaluation, what one wants has nothing to do with the conclusions one draws.
|
...but doesn't one
want their conclusions to be objective and true?
In a scientific context, this simply isn't true. There are many things we want from our theories. That they accurately describe reality is one of them. That they be useful to us is another. For example, it could very well be that God created all life on Earth and designed them all to look just as if they all descended from a common ancestor. This, however, is not a useful theory. If nothing else, it fails to help us make any kind of predictions...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Perhaps my problem is that I've been assuming we've been talking about parsimony in a scientific context and you're not. Then again, judging by some of the things you've said, above, it sounds like we have been talking about it in a scientific context and you simply don't really know what you're talking about.
We're talking about answers we like best. For most of us (actually, this isn't true but I like to think it is), the best answers are the "truthy" ones... but what is truth? In a scientific context, we judge the "truthiness" of theories by how well they fit our data, how well they predict the future and their utility (that would be the parsimonious part), in that order.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think there's something we can almost agree upon and that's that there is no "truth." I suspect that you believe that there is a truth but it is beyond our "grasp" whereas I believe that it's just a poorly defined human construct and doesn't really exist. To me, our beliefs are functionally equivalent and are, therefore, equivalent, because what the fuck is there beyond function?
You can tell how much I apply parsimony to my life. The last paragraph demonstrates this. If you can never grasp the truth, how is that different than there not being truth? You might as well assume there's no truth 'cause that's a more simple hypothesis...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Oh, this is going to be funny and I'll be waiting for your reply with a bowl of popcorn. Why do you think the application of parsimony is restricted to before the gathering of evidence?
Consider that parsimony is about choosing among different theories. You're suggesting that we theorize before gathering evidence. Really? Do you care to reconsider that?
Quote:
|
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.
|
You have not instilled me with any confidence...