Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Simplicity and truth (was: Re: Science and Aesthetics)
Message-ID: <100@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: thirdi.100
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Aug-87 01:48:20 EDT
References: <120@snark.UUCP> <86@thirdi.UUCP> <8707@ut-sally.UUCP> <20070@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <8727@ut-sally.UUCP> <20194@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 24
Keywords: simplicity elegance beauty truth ockham's razor
Summary: Explanatory power counts as an "other thing".

In article <20194@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Paul Kube) writes:

>But a theory may make more assumptions
>(even logically stronger ones) than another, and yet have each of its
>assumptions play an explanatory role.  Ockham's razor enjoins us to
>disbelieve the first theory, other things being equal; and I'm still
>wondering if there's an argument for it.
>

I think if one theory has greater explanatory power than another, the two
theories don't satisfy the conditions for applying Occam's Razor (How do you
spell that, anyhow?).  The law (as I understand it -- I hope the same way
Occam did) states that of two explanations, each of which fits all the
available facts equally well, one should pick the simpler or more modest
one.  If one of the explanations doesn't explain all the facts as well (lacks
equal explanatory power), then Occam's razor doesn't apply.
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge