- #1
- 4,652
- 37
Or just a mangy fox?
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070731_jj_chupacabrafind.cbe0f7fc.html
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070731_jj_chupacabrafind.cbe0f7fc.html
Last edited by a moderator:
A rancher from the South Texas town of Cuero is telling a chupacabra tale and she say she has the evidence in her freezer.
Phylis Canion says the animal had been lurking around her ranch for years.
She said it first snatched cats, then chickens right through a wire cage. “(It) opened it reached in pulled the chicken head out, sucked all the blood out, left the chicken in the cage.”
Canion says two dozen chickens were sucked dry.
The meat, she says, was left on the bone.
Occam's Razor doesn't assert that "the easiest explanation is always the right one":K.J.Healey said:Occam's razor guys, the easiest explanation... ...is always the right one.
a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities
Very interesting history. Any idea why it's called a "razor" instead of "guide" or "rule"?RogueSpidor said:Interestingly, Occam developed the razor to help him to convince that there were no gods but The One True God ("entities should not be multiplied needlessly") by saying that any phenomenon that is unexplained need not have a brand new god named for it. Instead, The One True God can be said to be responsible for all unexplained phenomena. It was likely to be very upsetting to him when it was taken to the next logical step; if the phenomena becomes explained, it can no longer be attributed to a god. As more people sought explanations, fewer people looked to any deity at all for an explanation, and many people decided it was more supportive of disbelief in any deity at all; an explanation that is not known does not mean it cannot be known, simply that it is not yet known, and the simplest answer was that it needed to be researched and understood, but not that some self-creating Entity was responsible.
zoobyshoe said:Very interesting history. Any idea why it's called a "razor" instead of "guide" or "rule"?
The next section from the Wikipedia is also very interesting:RogueSpidor said:The following is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor There's more, but this answers your question, with a citation; something which I prefer to include when I can.
William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) … is remembered as an influential nominalist, but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim known as Occam's razor Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, which occurs in his theological work on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.
– Thorburn, 1918, pp. 352-3; Kneale and Kneale, 1962, p. 243.
The origins of what has come to be known as Occam's razor are traceable to the works of earlier philosophers such as John Duns Scotus (1265–1308), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274), Alhacen (965-1039), and even Aristotle (384–322 BC) (Charlesworth 1956). The term "Ockham's razor" first appeared in 1852 in the works of Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1805–1865), long after Ockham's death circa 1349. Ockham did not invent this "razor," so its association with him may be due to the frequency and effectiveness with which he used it (Ariew 1976). Though Ockham stated the principle in various ways, the most popular version was written not by himself but by John Ponce of Cork in 1639 (Thorburn 1918).
The most-cited version of the Razor to be found in Ockham's work is Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate or Plurality ought never be posed without necessity.
Math Is Hard said:Or just a mangy fox?
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou070731_jj_chupacabrafind.cbe0f7fc.html
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA110107.dnaresults.kens.1cc40a72d.html... In the end, DNA results show that the mystery animal is a coyote
A Chupacabra is a legendary creature that is said to inhabit parts of the Americas, particularly Latin America and the southwestern United States. It is described as a hairless, dog-like or reptilian creature with sharp fangs and a thirst for blood.
The Rancher reported seeing a strange, dog-like creature with no hair and large fangs attacking his livestock. He also found strange footprints and other evidence that he believed to be from the Chupacabra.
There is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of Chupacabras. Many sightings and claims have been debunked as hoaxes or misidentifications of known animals.
It is possible that the Rancher may have mistaken a known animal, such as a coyote or dog, for a Chupacabra. The lack of hair and large fangs could be attributed to a genetic mutation or disease.
Without further evidence, it is difficult to determine the exact cause of the Rancher's sighting. However, it is likely that the creature he saw was a misidentified known animal or a hoax. Chupacabra sightings have often been debunked as hoaxes or misidentifications in the past.