Most Persistent Myths: Debunking the Loch Ness Monster

[Alkatran]

I thought the point of Occam's Razor was only to stop people from randomly adding "and the invislbe pink unicorn sits there and doesn't interfere" to the end of theories. I mean, there are potentially other applications (two formulas give the same result, use the easy one) but I can't imagine it ever being used to decide between two different theories. For example, it should NOT be applied to ID vs evolution. ID has different predictions than evolution (example: none).

 

[loseyourname]

I thought the point of Occam's Razor was only to stop people from randomly adding "and the invislbe pink unicorn sits there and doesn't interfere" to the end of theories. I mean, there are potentially other applications (two formulas give the same result, use the easy one) but I can't imagine it ever being used to decide between two different theories. For example, it should NOT be applied to ID vs evolution. ID has different predictions than evolution (example: none).

There is something called the principle of parsimony that is used in cladistic analysis. When determining the evolutionary relationship of one species to another (not just biological species, but languages or anything else that evolves and branches off into multiple forms) there are times when two proposed phylogenies work equally well, and the one that is more compact is chosen if there is nothing else to go on. This is at least one place where something akin to Occam's razor is employed to help choose between competing hypotheses.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

I thought the point of Occam's Razor was only to stop people from randomly adding "and the invislbe pink unicorn...[snip] but I can't imagine it ever being used to decide between two different theories. For example, it should NOT be applied to ID vs evolution. ID has different predictions than evolution (example: none).

It's for deciding when two branches are equally valid in all but complexity. ID and evolution are not equal in their ability to predict and describe. So I'd say that would qualify as another of the horrible abuses that make people think occams razor is crap.

I believe it is useful at a micro and macro level but like any useful tool it can be dangerous when wielded improperly or with malicious intent. The wielder is at fault though, not the tool. I have no doubt your example is being used somewhere to "prove" ID.

 

[NutriGrainKiller]

A few things come to mind - none of them, unfortunately, are very physics related.

first - when infected with poison ivy, blisters appear on the skin. if these blisters pop, the liquid inside will not spread poison ivy to wherever it touches. This is assuming the original resin from the plant has been washed away. I've always had a difficult time explaining this to people.

the following relate to contradictory positions on drugs. First - it is a very common misconceptions that hallucinogens (lsd, mushrooms, mescaline, salvia etc..) make your brain bleed, which is false. Second - many people think a lifetime of drug usage has no long term effects. A perfect example is syd barrett, who went "crazy" from abusing acid (among other things) too much in the late sixties. Living in an altered state for extended periods of time may not damage your brain physically, but can psychologically destroy you.

Intelligent design supporters who shun the idea of evolution are ridiculous. I can’t even begin to put into words how embarrassed I am that more than half my country disregards it as lunacy.

 

[Fliption]

Intelligent design supporters who shun the idea of evolution are ridiculous. I can’t even begin to put into words how embarrassed I am that more than half my country disregards it as lunacy.

Even more embarrassing...the same people who are ashamed of this view of so many people are perfectly willing to accept the ability of these same people to make an informed vote and then eagerly declare that Al Gore won the election in 2000. (See post from above)