Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Science as Religion (other objections to Wingate's article)
Message-ID: <221@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 13:52:10 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.221
Posted: Thu Nov  8 13:52:10 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 05:58:37 EST
References: <704@umcp-cs.UUCP> <209@cybvax0.UUCP> <770@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 24
Summary: 

In article <770@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@maryland.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>[Mike Huybensz]
>> If you've really read Bertrand Russell lately, Charlie, you should remember
>> that something can be rejected as unlikely, rather than on absolute logical
>> proof.  There are objective heuristics for guessing relative likelyhood
>> such as Occam's Razor.
>
>Occam's Razor applies to theories; its purpose is to simplify science, not to
>make it more "true".  It is a highly subjective weapon.  If I am told by
>someone that their brother rose from the dead last night, is not the
>simplest theory that he did in fact do so?  The evaluation that one would
>normally make would be that the event is "too unlikely"; but how unlikely
>IS too unlikely?  One makes a highly subjective evaluation.

If I am to invoke Occam's Razor to claim something is improbable, it is indeed
subjective if I just say "Occam's Razor, so there!"  However if I make a
comparison of the assumptions required or destroyed by the alternatives, and
then conclude with an invocation of the razor, then I have made an objective
statement of my reasoning that is subject to confirmation or rebuttal.
Selection of the assumptions analyzed by Occam's razor may be subjective, but
the use of the razor itself need not be.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh