Yes. I am at the point in my life that I usually assume malice, because I am no longer a child. And I would add that Occam's Razor is also a lie that steers people away from digging deeper into a story or historical event.
Occams Razor is defensible in its original form: Do not multiply entities beyond necessity (i.e. don't just make up objects or concepts will nilly, keep it simple).
Exactly. Occam's Razor is commonly, and incorrectly, said to be that the "simplest answer is usually the best." And that's what OWLMAN seems to be objecting to above.
But Occam's Razor really says that, in science, if your observations can be fully explained by the scientific principles that you already believe to be true, then you are not justified in inventing a new principle without a very good reason.
The other one that bugs me is the misuse of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. People take it to mean that we can't observe anything without changing it, or, worse, that we can't actually know anything.
But all Heisenberg said was that you can't detect a quantum wave (which includes atomic particles) without affecting it's state, and that you can't simultaneously measure it's location and it's momentum within certain limits of probability.
Good points. Occam's Razor (or the popular use of it as "the simplest answer is usually the best.") will lead people to not consider the possibility of a false flag event in the case of an atrocity. Especially in the US, where hardly one person in one thousand knows of the existence of Operation Northwoods, this is a recipe for disaster. But thank you for your input that expanded my knowledge of the concept!
You're welcome. And I should have also said that your point is a good one. The Globalists and the Deep State get away with their crimes largely by convincing people that so-called conspiracy theories are too complicated to be true. After all, who could possibly believe that all of the major media outlets are controlled by a single entity?
I'd say Occam's razor is useful in most cases. It runs into problems when you're dealing with a human element, because humans do things that are messy, irrational, or convoluted.
If your car won't start on a winter day it's probably safe for your first assumption to be the battery isn't putting out enough cold cranking amps.
If somebody gets busted for shoplifting there's a whole slew of reasons they could be doing it, some of them completely insane to an outsider, and most of the explanations are roughly as likely as any of the others.
Yes. I am at the point in my life that I usually assume malice, because I am no longer a child. And I would add that Occam's Razor is also a lie that steers people away from digging deeper into a story or historical event.
Agreed. And I would add that Gillette’s Razor is not actually ‘the best a man can get’
This thread has truly enlightened me.
By Menin!
This is the content I come here for
Nor even the best a VP's stepdaughter can get.
This is a fantastic post.
Occams Razor is defensible in its original form: Do not multiply entities beyond necessity (i.e. don't just make up objects or concepts will nilly, keep it simple).
Exactly. Occam's Razor is commonly, and incorrectly, said to be that the "simplest answer is usually the best." And that's what OWLMAN seems to be objecting to above.
But Occam's Razor really says that, in science, if your observations can be fully explained by the scientific principles that you already believe to be true, then you are not justified in inventing a new principle without a very good reason.
The other one that bugs me is the misuse of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. People take it to mean that we can't observe anything without changing it, or, worse, that we can't actually know anything.
But all Heisenberg said was that you can't detect a quantum wave (which includes atomic particles) without affecting it's state, and that you can't simultaneously measure it's location and it's momentum within certain limits of probability.
Good points. Occam's Razor (or the popular use of it as "the simplest answer is usually the best.") will lead people to not consider the possibility of a false flag event in the case of an atrocity. Especially in the US, where hardly one person in one thousand knows of the existence of Operation Northwoods, this is a recipe for disaster. But thank you for your input that expanded my knowledge of the concept!
You're welcome. And I should have also said that your point is a good one. The Globalists and the Deep State get away with their crimes largely by convincing people that so-called conspiracy theories are too complicated to be true. After all, who could possibly believe that all of the major media outlets are controlled by a single entity?
I'd say Occam's razor is useful in most cases. It runs into problems when you're dealing with a human element, because humans do things that are messy, irrational, or convoluted.
If your car won't start on a winter day it's probably safe for your first assumption to be the battery isn't putting out enough cold cranking amps.
If somebody gets busted for shoplifting there's a whole slew of reasons they could be doing it, some of them completely insane to an outsider, and most of the explanations are roughly as likely as any of the others.