Occam's Razor

zoobyshoe

Occam's razor n[William of Occam](ca.1837):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

Merram-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 2000

If we don't look for explanations of unexplained phenomena in terms of known quantities first then a kind of speculative free for all will ensue: flying saucers are from another planet, flying saucers are from another dimension, flying saucers are from the hollow interior of the earth, flying saucers are time travelers from the future.

selfAdjoint

I think you've got William of Occam misdated. He was medieval, not 19th century.

zoobyshoe

The date appears to refer to William, but is in fact an approximate date for the first known usage of the term as defined here. Many of the words in the Merriam-Webster's are dated thus. Sorry for the confusion.

Edit: The tenth edition says (ca.1837)

The eleventh edition (most recent) gives medieval dates:

Merriam-Webster OnLine
Address:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...onary&va=Occam's+razor

I suppose the tenth edition actually contained an error.

Try going here and looking up Occam's razor, you might get the version that says (ca.1837):
Merriam-Webster OnLine
Address:http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

quartodeciman

A lot of folks prefer speculative free-for-all. It is democratic. Nothing is worse than some know-it-all kill-joy wrecking the fun.

zoobyshoe

Well, sometimes it's democratic. Sometimes, though, the ones who believe flying discs are from another planet feel the need to gather in the desert at night and invoke the mothership to vaporize all those who believe the discs are from the hollow earth.

quartodeciman

I don't think they have had a very great success rate at that, Zoob.

Ivan Seeking

Explain please:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

zoobyshoe

Unfortunately that's one o' them pdf thingies my webtv can't get to. Whatever it says, look for the explanation first in terms of known quantities.

Zero

I don't have to explain it...anyone trying to use that document to make a claim has to explain it.

selfAdjoint

All I could manage to read in that blurry image was that pilots reported a bright object, radar confirmed it, and the pilots had visual aftereffects from the brightness.

Is there some reason you know that it couldn't have been a meteor? Perhaps a single body breaking in two to give the illusion (to those who sayw it only in flashes) of supernatural acceleration?

Ivan Seeking

If you read the entire document, including the intial summary and the routing list, you will see that this is an intelligence report that went to nearly all of the highest levels of goverment. Mulitiple eyewitnesses and pilots confirm RADAR data. I suggest that you study the report before commenting further.

Ivan Seeking

I didn't make a claim. I asked you to explain it.

Ivan Seeking

Here is the Joint Chiefs of Staff Reports on the same incident:

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

Gotta go for now. [:)]

zoobyshoe

It seems that Ivan's link may have been intended as some sort of challenge to Occam's razor.

I don't, and no one should be, claiming anything to the effect that it can be used to explain anything away, or to explain everything in terms of known quantities.

It is a guidline about how to go about investigating unknown phenomena: start in terms of known quantities.

It also won't help you if you can't collect enough evidence to come to a solid conclusion.

That's where the simpler theory being preferable to the complex theory comes in.

selfAdjoint

Nah, I don't think that who saw the report contributes anything to its veracity. None of those high ranking muckymucks were trained analysts. I am always puzzled about this line of argument by the believers; Jack Sarfatti is always going, "Gee the Communist high command! "Gee The CIA!" back some claim or other as if we hadn't all seen how foolish and self serving all those agencies can be.

And multiple pilots and confirmed RADAR were implicit in my original question. I still don't think you have ruled out a breaking up meteoroid in what you have posted here on the subject.

Ivan Seeking

No, it was to put into proper context the UFO comments made.

Ivan Seeking

Well, if that's your best attempt at objectivity so be it.