151
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
151 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15981 readers
2 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Also even if it was about "the simplest", it's NOT THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION.
"Boeing killed a guy" - Boeing has already killed several guys (albeit by accident).
"Guy killed himself" - The guy had never before killed himself (as evidenced by him being alive until then)
He was also like 62 (so retired and unconcerned about future employment prospects?), seemingly healthy, and seemingly pretty content with everything other than Boeing, so...
bayes theorem stay winning
There's an xkcd for everything
Thank. You.
Also note that it's not an inviolable law. It doesn't actually prove any particular position. It's just a principle to guide your thinking and nothing more.
Say your car breaks down. The idea that it's a mechanical failure is more Occam-friendly than the idea that your car was sabotaged which then caused the mechanical failure which caused your car to break down.
Note that as we add in that additional assumption, we reduce the likelihood of the second idea being true compared to the first idea. That's just a function of adding assumptions. You could add an assumption that a person who had been threatening you was the person who sabotaged your car and it becomes less likely again, all things being equal.
All that this illustrates is that the more specific something is, the less generally applicable it is. Astonishing, right?
One of my favourite ways to really stump these dorks is by asking them which assertion is true according to Occam's razor (itself false due to my point above and putting it in these terms is a low-key flex because a person who knows what they're talking about would object to the framing of the assertion but that forever seems to be lost on these fools):
That God created the universe
The sum total of all of astrophysics, with every single claim therein, is how the universe was created
Obviously the simplest argument is always inherently the truest and most accurate argument every time, right?
You can drag the conversation down into the weeds by defending the first argument since it still makes fewer claims even when you add in extra points like the fact that god has always existed and is all powerful etc.; there's basically no way of arguing that the explanation that astrophysics provides us for how the universe was created is simpler than the argument that God did it.
Of course this type of person is most likely to be an atheist edgelord, or at least a reformed edgelord, so this sort of argument is very likely to rile them up. And of course you can cut through this argument by stating that the number of assumptions that astrophysics makes is fewer but, again, that requires the other person to know what they're talking about.
Hey I'm not super strong on rhetorics and I'm kinda curious about the flaw in your argument. Would you mind explaining what the issue with your "god made the earth, or all of astrophysics did" supposition is?
Is it just that there's a lot of hidden assumptions in the god bit and a lot of proven assumptions in the astrophysics bit?
I think "God did it" is a straight up simpler explanation no matter how you slice it. The problem is with the incorrect application of Occam's razor.
My least favorite thing about these :smuglord: types is their constant misuse of language. I honestly don't really mind busting out the ol logical falicies and shit but for the love of god use it correctly.
Yup. "this is how I, and everyone I have ever known use the word. Also here's a dictionary defining it that way"
"language perspectivist much :smuglord:"
Saw someone post the dictionary definition of "anarchy" after being told that anarchists weren't just anti-government every man for themselves types. "The dictionary says it is, so I can just ignore political theory"
A classic is when they bust out "ad hominem" after being called an idiot.
AN INSULT IS NOT WHAT AN AD HOMINEM IS YOU BUFFOONS
Insult: you suck
Ad Hominem: you suck, therefore you're wrong
https://redsails.org/the-ad-hominem-fallacy-fallacy/
I am open and honestly interested in finding out more. I'm reading about Occam for the first time.
Would you like to say a little more about what assumptions are in this context? Sources on Occam that explain the idea sufficiently well would also be good.
Thanks in advance!
Thank you for this writeup. I'm gonna bookmark it and spam it at every dumbass who uses Occam's razor from now on. Your butterfly example is a great explanation of my frustration with how the concept is used in modern day
Just want to add that people who invoke Occam's razor almost always rely on this to conceal a normative argument in order to defend the default position.
As an example, people generally presume that capitalism is meritocratic right?
If you make an case for why this is not true a person like the one in the screenshot might start tutting and wagging their finger at you while chiding you about Occam's razor because your argument is more "complex", or something to that effect, and thus that it is wrong.
Don't ever let them do that.
Just because you are refuting something which is held as truth according to conventional wisdom doesn't mean that it has fewer assumptions. It's just that those assumptions are generally accepted as true by the majority of people and therefore feels like those assumptions don't count.
Yeah that's also one of the reasons I hate seeing it invoked. It's always done by some status quo dickhead. There's that one and then the one about "not attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence." I've seen both invoked to defend the bombing of civilians more than once.
Agreed.
Honestly, the malice/incompetence thing is pretty okay to operate with on a personal level just like "Distrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong" is but if you're dealing with a judge or, say, people who are seeking to prosecute former Nazi party members then they're going to display the urge to punish strongly and it shows how insufficient it is to base your politics on an adage.
I've had a massive rant to a comrade some time ago about how it's a feature not a bug that almost all of the ways that we, the unwashed masses, experience our interface with the government as being slow, inefficient, and incompetent; I believe that this is a conceit of liberal democracy in late stage capitalism - if everyone's experience of the government is one characterised by incompetence then we struggle to even conceive of a government that is responsive and responsible, and this conceals the true nature of the governments that we live under in the west. But fail to pay your taxes or start researching and buying material to make improvised... devices, for example, you get to witness the other face of the government - one which is ruthlessly efficient and extremely capable of achieving its ends.
At some point your suspension of disbelief has to wear thin when yet-another supply of weapons from the US just so happens to end up in the hands of ISIS or yet-another MSF or Al-Jazeera building gets struck by US munitions. In the serious end of government, the wheels are greased with shit like plausible deniability, feigned incompetence, and post-facto internal investigations/admissions of culpability.
Thank you for taking the time to explain!
Basically what Egon said below.
The assumptions being made about him killing himself are vast. First you have to assume he had some serious mental health crisis without evidence, or that some other dark secret was about to be revealed about him, or any number of other assumptions without evidence as to why he might have been motivated to take his own life.
Therefore the least amount of assumptions one could make was the obvious: He was murdered to silence him while he was a key witness against a multi-billion dollar corporation trying to get out of being held responsible for the deaths of other people they already killed.
I think they mean "assumptions" in general - like what is defined as being an "assumption" wrt Occam's razor?
An assumption would be a supposition that something, which isn't directly proven by the known facts, happened and led to the event you're trying to explain. Example: fire starts outside your house in drought season. Possible explanation #1: someone threw a glass bottle which caused a fire to start in the dry grass. Explanation #2: Your neighbor had a grudge against you and doused the grass with gasoline to do arson.
The first explanation makes one assumption: we don't know if someone did litter or not, it's not an unreasonable thing to guess but it's also not directly related to the facts we already know. The second explanation makes several assumptions: That our neighbor had a grudge, that said grudge drove them to use gasoline specifically to douse the grass and burn it. These things may be true, but none of the facts relevant to the situation directly prove either of the assumptions.
Exactly. What he said was: 'pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate', “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”
Sometimes, there's pretty damn obvious necessity.
I was thinking the same thing.
The wild "TAKE" here is that person's interpretation of how to apply Occam's Razor.