Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!krista
From: krista@ihuxr.UUCP (k.j.anderson)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Occam's Razor - A Popular Fallacy?
Message-ID: <1032@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 19:01:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1032
Posted: Thu Apr 12 19:01:38 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Apr-84 21:00:47 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 20

<food>
   Are you *sure* Occam's Razor is a valid principle?  I see it used
frequently by both sides in creation/evolution arguments.  It states
something like if two explanations work equally well, the simpler of
the two should be chosen for belief.
   If that is true, can anybody show me why it's true?  For example,
we see the sun travel across the sky daily.  A simple explanation
might be that the sun revolves around the earth, but most of us know
that the more accurate explanation is a bit more complicated.
   "Skeptical Inquirer" recently published an article about popular
aphoristic fallacies, so this is on my mind.  The author's pet peeve
was the fallacy, "you can't prove a negative" (i.e.that something
does not exist.  There is, of course, no validity to the statement.
   A pet peeve of mine is the tendancy for some people to want every-
thing to be packaged neatly into concrete concepts and syllogistic
deductions.  Life is not so easy.  Science requires induction,
experimentation, creativity and (forgive me) hunches.  This is 1984.
Noone could know all knowledge.  Not all future knowledge could be
derived deductively from present knowledge.  We must live with
uncertainty or be dishonest.  ihuxr!krista (k.j.anderson)