Occam's Razor - rational principles explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2024
- This is a video explaining Occams's Razor, which is a normative, rational pattern of thought. It also explains how this principle differs from Inference to the Best Explanation and some other similar principles. There is also an explanation of an individual's ontology. To illustrate all of this, several examples are used involving the germ theory of disease and plate tectonics. This video was originally developed for use in an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics, but it can be used for any philosophy course.
Note: The most common _misuse_ of Occam's Razor is to compare two hypotheses, one of which _doesn't_ adequately explain the observed phenomena, and the other of which _does,_ and to select the first "explanation" over the latter because it's simpler. Simplicity _with equal or better explanatory power_ is the criterion. Looking for mere simplicity _alone_ leaves "nothing exists" as the best "explanation" imaginable!
Very important comment! I still struggle every day trying to explain to fellow economists, that just having a simpler model doesn't make it better...
Ira Joe Fisher, TV weatherman on CBS, did this every day.
Yep! It has to actually be an explanation
God defeats and explains everything. He defeats Occam's razor.
My thoughts exactly!
The most impressive thing about Kaplan's videos is that he can write backwards on the glass.
I think the video has been filmed as a mirror image. The buttons on men's shirts are on the right side (the wearer's right side). The buttons on Jeffrey's shirt appear to be on his left side in the video.
@@richardbeasley4898 aye, but could you imagine how impressive thatd be. If I hadn’t given it more than a second of thought i would have whent with it, but yeah now i cant not see it reversed back to backwards now that you said something
He has explained it in a video about the lightboard or in a comment.
because we know that you can mirror a video, but we do not know that kaplan is a calligraphy savant, occam’s razor has us posit that he did simply mirror the video
I didn't even realize that's what he was doing, absolute mad man
I just love how philosophy is talking about the nature of knowledge and this is relevant in every aspect of life.
Don't you know what the word philosophy means?
@@user-pm4sp3yr6g I know. Your point ? Don't be a smartass.
I don't love how philosophy is attempting to replace science.
@@psdaengr911 What clap trap! Philosophy IS science. It's where scienctific enquiry as we know it came from. What do you think phD means?! All doctors, be them Doctors of medicine, Doctors of music, Doctors of mathematics are all awarded a phD ie they become Doctors of Philosophy! Your lack of research assures me you'll never earn one of those!
My favorite application of this principle is when discussing stories and fiction. Very often I might question why a character didn't make a decision within a story and very often people will try to rationalize it by using the context within the story and adding conjecture for things that the story does not explain. Meanwhile, I often conclude that a character simply did not make a decision because the writer had not thought of it.
Both methods of explaining things can work but I think it's often safest to assume that anything that can't be explained within a story using only what the story provides, is something that exists merely as an error in the writing.
Thank you! All the conspiracy theories floating around the interwebs drove me here. Well, actually a very smart statistician who I've been talking to about these conspiracy theories and propaganda told me to look up Occam's Razor. I'm learning how to do my own research in determining what is true and what is false by searching for the facts myself. Thank you for your in-depth explanation of Occam's Razor. Very informative.
Thanks. Sounds like a very worthy quest. Glad I could help!
Oh, also, I happen to have a brief discussion of what is mistaken about some flat earth conspiracy thinking in another video of mine: th-cam.com/video/GAYn5v5E20s/w-d-xo.html
I am struck by thought. I myself struggle with the concept of simplicity over complexity. Arguably if this was so the simple addition of Magical thinking would neatly explain something that physical science is tying itself in knots to explain. My current understanding of the iteration process created by ancient philosophers to explain matter was atoms. These were sub divided to sub atomic particles protons neutrons and electrons. Further now we have every flavour including up down and strange quarks.... Ockams razor hasnt finished there..... so now to quantum complexity. Indeed quantum entanglement. Partical wave duality. And back to matter... and anti matter and dark forces and dark matter and... and... and....
My comment is tongue in cheek. In a world of received "logic" Ockams razor might have arguably lost its edge as we dissolve into wibbly wobbly derivations of a truth we have only limited senses to descent. ...... Just a playful thought experiment if you will allow. Unless we would prefer to rely on the unquestionable certainty of LOGIC. Whatever that is.... 🤔
@@phaedrusgrey4355 Playful thought processes are how we learn not just about the world we inhabit but also about thought: the philosophy of science, which is now taught in very few universities whereas once it was a necessary central formation of the understanding of science at any degree study... (It's slowly making a comeback, but I fear it will take a long time to recover inadequate importance.)
So long as everyone else at the table understands you don't believe in the kooky, mystical, or conspiratorial ideas that naturally come up, then always have fun with such topics -- it commonly results in discovering a more "realistic" explanation for the conspiracy that your conversation has turned up, and if it doesn't it presents you with an interesting field of study.
(I was just having a fun discussion about how science can't yet explain how diviners using divining rods can locate deep features under a field where geophysical techniques fail, the topic covering how metal rods might interact with magnetic fields in ways we can't tell which doesn't explain how diviners manage who still use willow, etc. It demonstrated that further study is required, because it is a real scientifically tested phenomenon, but it does not of itself admit to magic, ESP or other mysticism being real.)
@@phaedrusgrey4355 I think establishing what is the "simple" explanation isn't always straightforward. A lot of the time, it is nothing more than experience and intuition.
Even if you believe in small bugs, who is to say that "witches exist" is a bigger and more outlandish supposition than "these small bugs are also capable of causing disease"? I mean, obviously me - I would say that. But the point is that I'm not sure exactly how I'm quantifying that. It's just obvious. In many cases, it will be less obvious, and often it seems far more rational to hold doubts and admit the possibility of two things than it is to apply the razor to a marginal case.
the best presentation on youtube on "occam's razor". from 0.20 to 6.00 minutes.
what clarity man !
many thanks.
you deserve a standing ovation !
This video is an absolute must for all PhD students
1. every human possess an ontology model deep inside his mind
2. formal education must help every man to digout-clarify his own ontology model
3. else... !
4. all expenditure on education in terms of money-time-efforts will go waste
5. as man becomes older , he must attempt to simplify his own ontology model as much as possible
6. he must document-publish it before he dies !
7. he must pass it on to the next generation as legacy.
3 minutes in and I feel this guy is critically under-subbed. Great delivery and presentation. Thanks for the video!
If I had this type of teacher in high school to teach me a philosophy, I would understand it's principles much earlier in life.
Why you need this
@@periklisspanos7185 Every inteligent person should study philosophy. It's always interresting to find different perspectives.
In some anti-edumacation parts of the US today, he would be branded a -witch- warlock, and chased away. Or burned.
And poorly.
You're lucky you didn't. You might have grown up believing in a simple universe.
Please dont say, " you know" while explaining something......because.....we don't. I truly enjoy watching this gentleman.
Thank you. Movie 12 Angry Men (1957 and 1997) is the opposite of Occam's razor, it teaches us to do deeper thinking and extract as much evidence as possible, then make a decision (you can apply Occam's razor here). However, any new evidence is subject to change in our decision. This movie shows how to use our analytical abilities to avoid injustice or faulty conclusions. Most people fail to express their opinions for fear of ridicule or rejection. Many things may not be what they appear to be. I looked up the lessons of this movie on Google and it says this, "Theories of group process including: groupthink, group polarization, social loafing, social compensation and social facilitation are exemplified in the movie “Twelve Angry Men.” The impact of group process is potentially damaging and in the context of a jury must be mitigated to ensure fairness and adherence to values."
I would like to acknowledge that Occam’s razor and twelve angry men don’t contradict, because they both have different aims. 12 angry men is about proving that there is doubt in the case compared to Occam’s razor which is determining what is the most likely case. Most likely the guy murdered the guy in 12 angry men, but it is definitely not 100%. Occam’s razor is a good rule of thumb but it is certainly not a law
Fantastically clear explanations. I would take it that some things Occam's Razor dispenses with of course have to be brought back as evidence and understanding both increase.
I enjoyed the explanation. I enjoyed even more how often he admitted he wasn't sure of something or questioned his examples. It takes intelligence to know what you don't know.
Dude, you are so intense it’s humorous. . Your videos are amazing, educational and entertaining.
Beautifully explained!!!!!!! Thank you, Jeffrey Kaplan.
It's really refreshing to see the word 'fewer' used in this video. 👍
I deeply enjoy these videos.
they are informative, the host is friendly.
it's good vibes.
Thanks you for the video. I have finally, properly understood Occam's Razor. I've never seen any of your videos before but I'll be sure to hang around.
A commentor referenced Occam's Razor in a Facebook post and since I never heard of such (which surprised me at my age) that I took to the internet to try to understand how this related to the details of the post. I am glad I found this video because it was WAY more informative than other definitions or videos on TH-cam. Thank you! I really enjoy your presentation style and am interested in your other videos! Count me in as a new subscriber!
Really interesting ! Originally came here because of a song named Occam ‘s razor and the rational principle is really intriguing !
What's the song? I've never heard of it. But glad you liked the video!
@@profjeffreykaplan "Occam's razor" is the name of the song (which is part of a series which its own story)
The title seems to refer to the way the main character reflect upon the situation he's facing, without really diving inside the concept. But its this song that brought me to search upon this concept ^^
The song was written by Frank Zappa. There are no lyrics. It's more like an extended guitar solo.
The last 45 seconds or so, when you bring up tenure and how that can affect rationality 😘👌
Thanks. I was puzzled by the word RAZOR.
Excellent video! And I was really amazed at how easy you can write backwards, it's insane!
Thanks. I wish I could take credit for writing backwards, but I write everything forwards and then the image is flipped. It looks like I am a lefty, but I am really a righty.
@@profjeffreykaplan I initially thought you were writing backwards as well, supposing you were a lefty. Applying Occam's Razor, however, I came to the conclusion that you had simply flipped the footage.
@@profjeffreykaplan Zoom allows for a flipped mirror, too. Thank goodness.
I assumed it was A mirror 😂 he holds the cap in his left hand, with his wedding ring.
Well at least we can still appreciate whomever is cleaning the transparent surface because IT is spotless.
Imagine how long it took this guy to learn how to write backwards so perfectly.
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I originally heard the term in Carl Sagan's PBS series Cosmos and then again in the movie Contact. P. S. I used it in trying to figure out how you're writing backwards on a glass board. I initially thought you're either a genius who can see this in his head and transfer it to the board for us to be able to read it, or that you're really not left-handed and that you probably just inverted the video image. Because most people are right-handed I assumed the ladder. Yes?
When absolutely no one enlightens you on your theory or quest for truth!
Ockam's razor would indeed suggest the latter
Didn't really asked myself about his supposed left-handedness, but it is quite obvious when you look how his shirt is buttoned down. There is something disturbing in how it looks, because you only see the left part folded over the right part when you look at yourself in the mirror.
@@MrLipsky no, its not. most man dont wear rings, if they do, its either more than one or its a wedding ring. a wedding ring is worn on the left hand. also, he writes with his right hand in a video on a whiteboard. that would be mirrored if it were mirrored. damn, that i had to look this up. i dont even like his videos and his way of presenting is annoying. sorry. dont mean to be rude tho.
Occam's razor would suggest he's writing on a mirror. That seems like the simplest explanation.
Occam’s Razor really helps me figure out which excuse I’m going to use to call in sick to work.
Very interesting explanation. Btw, in which program have you edit this video?
One explanation is that this man practiced for extensive periods writing and drawing backwards but a simpler explanation is that the video was flipped in post
This.
Very well explained... writing things backward was amazing... are you behind a glass board or is it some kind of graphics...?
Good question. I just made this short video explaining how the board works: th-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/w-d-xo.html
Occam's razor was not intended as a guideline for what explanations you should believe, it was intended as a guideline for what explanations are the preferred candidates for further testing.
what's intended and what something is good for are not necessarily the same
@@thesnowybanana2971 I don't disagree with that in general, but in the case of Occam's Razor, it certainly would not be wise to assume that it is a reliable guideline for choosing what is best to believe. Quite often the simplest explanation is not the best or most correct.
@@NondescriptMammal well, remembering that “simplest” does not mean “that which takes least effort or time to say” but instead means “that which, between two or more explanations, derived from the same evidence, makes the least amount of assumptions,” I don’t know of many instances, or any instances really, in which using that as a rule won’t get you to a belief that is of higher likelihood to be correct, or at least is more functional/convenient than the opposing theory.
also wrong, since it's a logical impossibility, since competing explanations are equally simple, only with a different distribution of truth values.
@@thesnowybanana2971 nope. the amount of assumptions is always equal if explanations compete. that's a direct consequence of tertium non datur during isomorphization.
That's the best explanation I've heard of Occam's Razor by tying it to ontology.
And that's why when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail! Just discovered your videos - they're awesome, I've watched a few. Thanks for sharing!
I always thought it was a "razor" because of the decision-making: the edge is so thin that you must fall on one side of the decision or the other. Like the metaphor of "sitting on the fence" in decision-making (that is, one cannot make a decision). A razor-thin fence can not be sat upon. I hadn't thought of it as Kaplan describes, like "shaving things away". Not sure I like his explanation, though. Any one else have a thought on the razor metaphor?
aside from older geologists holding on to land bridges the main reason continental drift became adopted in the 60s-70s is that they could explore undersea far better and found the fault line running down the middle of the atlantic that is obviously actively expanding and pushing the continents away from each other. so tech improvements led to a more obvious explanation for continents drifting around over time. that was the biggest clincher.
I think it was the discovery of the mid Atlantic ridge that settled the score in favour of tectonic plate movement. Also they found similar geographic strata on opposite sides of the ocean, like the ones that link northern Scotland to North America.
I enjoyed this a great deal, but also hoped to hear more about the dangers of Occam's Razor - ways in which it can be misapplied or misunderstood. I also think EVERY talk about Occam's Razor should make mention of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express". (I realize that sentence will confuse some people.)
How would "the murder on the orient express" be relevant?
@@edwardliebert4478 Since you asked, it's hard not to do this with a spoiler. Simply put, there are 2 possible solutions to the murder: one very simple, one very complex. I'll leave it at that in case you want to read it or watch a movie/tv adaptation.
An excellent explanation!
Interesting.
BTW, I have been working of a way to construct a graphical depiction of an ontology model (vs symbolic approaches such as OWL) and watching this gave me some additional ideas on things I can add to my methodology for doing that.
Glad it was helpful!
@@profjeffreykaplan the last few seconds reminds me of co2 induced warming
Plate tectonics was invented and accepted by kids in my grade school in the 1950s... based on Africa and Brazil looked like they fit together.
I remember a copy of the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine I had where it explained the idea of Occam's razor. No matter how disparate the symptoms appear, there is usually a single disorder responsible for them all, a kind of parsimonious modelling. But then I remember it went on to say Occam would later die as a result of a combination of diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, pneumonia and septicemia 😆 Get it?
By positing a multiplicity of causes as the explanation of an event is to work against Occam's Razor, surely, since whilst a single cause of death may result from a combination of more remote causes of a condition, death till result in the final instant from the action of one of these causes, or another single physiological malfunction to which they all contribute in a greater or lesser degree. To ascribe the death of William to a combination of factors is to use a blunted, dulled razor surely. (I speak, by the way, as someone whose ancestors came from the village of Ockham!)🙃
i thought he slit his throat? get it?
I came here because of the episode of House called Occam’s Razor. I think I’m agnostic because I applied Occam’s Razor to religion, without ever having heard of Occam’s Razor. Thanks for the explanation.
I know it's kinda off topic but does anyone know of a good website to stream newly released series online ?
@Garrett Karson Flixportal :D
@Joel Zeke thanks, I signed up and it seems like they got a lot of movies there :) Appreciate it!!
@Garrett Karson No problem xD
@Caleb That is why the phrase “fewest assumptions” is much more useful than “simplest” in Occam’s Razor.
“God did it” is very simple grammatically, but the idea of God is a placeholder for several giant assumptions.
Great video! Well explained and so relevant!
He imminently represented Occam’s razor.
It’s was NOT. “You should believe explanations that are simple.” No.
It was, when presented with competing explanations, you should go with the one that requires less assumptions.
@@marcoglara2012 Isn't an explanation which requires less assumptions than another explanation also simpler than the other one?
@@Dragumix
Short answer, no .
Example of the simplest answer: “God did it”
While, the simplest, it requires the grandest assumptions
Would this Occam´s Razor be applicable to current AI models in order to get them to give only the most rational answers instead of trying to guess the next word regardless of validity?
The whole image of him and the clear board is reversed…indicated by the fact that his shirt button placket is on the wrong side for men’s apparel.
Excellent video!
I was taught that it is not a principle but a heuristic, there's a big difference in science! A heuristic is a sort of useful tool that works in many cases or a general 'rule of thumb', not an underlying absolute principle. It usually, but not necessarily and certainly not always, leads one to the correct conclusion.
That’s correct.
So the more things you suppose, the less likely it is that something is true? Just like it's less likely that you'll throw a 6 with a die 6 times in a row vs throwing a 1 once?
A great explanation.
Captivating presentation.
The simplest, and truest explanation is that it's more natural, instinctive, for a lefty to write from right to left, in reverse. Think of Leonardo's notebooks.
Will Occam's razor help me answer a question i have? I'm not sure whether at 6:00 Jeffrey says "which theory to adopt" or "witch theory, to adopt"?
It's important to remember occams rasor is just a tool for selecting the most probable theory which may not be the correct theory.
Agree, it's flaw is that it only accepts previously known concepts as truth, the reality is that the world is evolving and what we thought we knew is no longer our reality or true. The last two and a half years are proof of this.
The very best explanation I have yet found on this topic.
I do agree.
well, since it's nothing but bullshit, that's not a good sign...
How the heck do you shoot this? I love the explanation and I really love the writing-on-glass technique.
Camera mounted below waist level on a table or mount that is out of the field of view, and he faces a mirror and writes upon it. And there is a black background behind him.
Now lets move on to the content of his thoughts. That IS what we're here for.
Awesome!👍
😮Re: my ‘Non Sequitur’ question below.
I figured it out. So simple. Duh! … Dr. Kaplan is indeed right handed and he’s probably writing on a sheet of glass or clear plastic in front of him, and this transparent medium is between Jeffrey Kaplan and the camera (as well as us the viewers.)
In the editing, the editor horizontally flips the entire presentation. Now the camera and the audience can read all of his writing as if he was writing it backwards from his POV, just for us. This also makes Kaplan look left handed. A small price to pay to present his findings as masterfully as he does. OK, everybody, carry on!
Yes it's called "lightboard" you can watch his video " How this Lightboard Works"
Excellent!!!👏👏👏👏
Bro I’m stuck in syllogisms can you make a video on that your brilliant in simplification ( I obviously already know some , am I just realising I should intuit this ? )
"it was a long walk"
great content
From what I know Occam's Razor doesn't ask you to believe (or not) anything. It just says that simpler things are more likely to be true.
It doesn't claim that they are ALWAYS true, and thus you shouldn't believe something if there's a simpler alternative.
But as with probabilities no matter the % either can be true sometimes.
Actually often something is simple and we believe it's true (for example that there are 4 elements that make everything - it's quite simple).
But then we discover & learn more details about it, and what happens? Does it become less likely now that we know that more (unique) things are involved in the processes?
No, most often learning more things lets us focus on what exactly is important for a given thing (claim, statement, theory etc...).
In that process (of learning) we might discover that some of the details we've considered before are not unique or not important.
For example (of the 4 elements) we discover that Earth, Water, Air, Fire are equally meaningless. To be more precise (and rational) we discover that they're ultimately made by the same things - elementary particles, and that they mostly differ by the combination of these particles and eventually some different energies (like a flame is just electrons freed from their atoms, because of energy released by some process).
Occam's razor should be used (if at all) only in situations where we have very limited time & resources to investigate better, and are trying with minimum effort to get higher chances to get it right.
Just because something is more popular doesn't mean it's more important or more universal ;)
Yes, I always though Occam's razor as kind of nonsense. It's like a theory manufactured for people not willing to see the limits of their own knowledge; eg. manifesting their own Dunning-Kruger's effect filled thinking as somehow valid. An explanation being simple or complex doesn't logically have anything to do with it being true or not. Occam's razor is simply false.
it doesn't say that. it's a purely LOGICAL principle that's nothing to do with truth in the slightest. it's exclusively about parsimony in MODELS about the SAME explanation, not different ones. people don't understand this because people in general are no logicians.
@@hannuak no, occam's razor is not false. it's simply not what people think it is. the stuff the dude's talking about has nothing to do with occam's razor.
@@ejb6822 OK, I see... Not really explained to me this way. If that's correct, might make more sense. I guess I've been taught completely wrong.
@@hannuak don't worry, most people label someting that's actually a logical impossibility as "occam's razor" - the true concept is nothing anyone would consider to be basic knowledge. you'd need to really dive deep into logistic modelling and theory of complexity to understand the real principle, and all everyday-conversation notions of this concept are just crap.
This man has a super power to write backwards.
I don’t care about Occam’s razor anymore, This dude writing backwards is very impressive
He most likely flips the video lol
@Lonny Nance Jnr Himself That skill in itself would require years of practice to get to the level that he is at. Where as flipping a video, in editing software that he already uses as this video is clearly edited to some degree, would be trivial. So therefore the simplest explanation would be that he flips the video. Or something like that idk.
@Lonny Nance Jnr Himself ahh okay, I just watched it. So it is flipped :)
Opening statement of presentation opens with a false statement stating Occam's Razor says you should only believe in simple answers. NO. Occam's Razor does not state you should only believe in answers that are simple. Occam's razor states that the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions is MOST OFTEN, the correct answer. NOT ALWAYS.
And the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions is MOST OFTEN the hardest to get.
he is just fantastic. i will get it in the second viewing. thanks.
5.30 The problem in your reasoning is: What we don't have in our ontology might be true and learning should be possible. If witches are true then learning and adding to our ontology would be profitable. We don't just go on what we already know, that is the point. 10.40 A lot depends on the evidence. If there was evidence of a land bridge then that would be true. I get your point that you are saying but the examples could be better
Hello Jeffery, Are you still active on your channel here? It's been 5 months since you published a video on your channel.
I have been swamped with teaching, research, and parenting responsibilities during the last few months. I will be recording and editing a series of videos this summer, which I will post in the late summer or early fall in anticipation for a course I am teaching Fall 2021.
@@profjeffreykaplan Great. I'll subscribe and check back. Thank you for your answer. :)
The elephant in the room is "What is the definition of 'explanation'?"
Very good 👍
Fantastic - SUBBED and thanks
i applied Occams Razor to you writing backwards. it must be some kind of video effect. Thats far easier than learning to write backwards at the speed you are doing it.
However, Leonardo Da Vinci, was left handed and wrote in mirror writing. So could have written on glass so that the viewer facing him would have perceived the writing as left to right.
@@rattytattyratnettBut that would have to include the unlikely supposition that Kaplan is every bit the genius that was Leonardo. Tricky.
The plate tectonics explanation works hypothetically, as an example of how Occam's razor could work. But it doesn't fit with how the history of the theory was explained in geology class.
There are enough different rocks in enough places that we would expect quite a few weird coincidences to show up, just by sheer numbers. The alignment of mountain ranges, the shape of the continents, and the distribution of fossils all looked as though the continents had once been juxtaposed, with no Atlantic Ocean between them. The shape had been noticed before the Americas were all that well mapped, and by 1912 Alfred Wegener had compiled an impressive amount of evidence. But it wasn't widely believed, because there was no then-imaginable way that it could have happened. At the time, geologists would have had to postulate witches moving the continents by magic, or something equally bizarre and ad-hoc, so they didn't. Then, from the late 1940s through the 1960s, people made various measurements including mapping the depth of the oceans and measuring magnetism in rocks, which showed lots of volcanism at mid-ocean ridges and at some distance beyond ocean trenches. Once there was an explanation for continental motion that didn't involve magic, the theory of plate tectonics was accepted. There wasn't much more of the sort of evidence that Wegener had compiled. The "fixist" explanations didn't need more land bridges. Rather, the land bridges they did need were less plausible when the contours of the sea floor were known, and the mechanism of subduction and oceanic lithosphere creation had come to be explainable without recourse to magic.
Ah ha! You saw that lecture about the Great Flood too! Nice one!!!! (it's a lecture by a geologist given at Harvard - available of TH-cam) EDIT: It's actually not exactly that but about a theory for the great flood made by engineers in the 1960s that was actually valid *if plate tecnotics* is not taken into consideration. It was in that lecture that I learned plate tectonics wasn't widely accepted until the 1970s. And people still think we know everything ...
I was wondering why the simpler explanation, the flood, wasn't used in this explanation of occams razor. If you believe the Bible, all of the explanations are simpler.
As a matter of fact, if you believe the Bible 100% then occams razor will most likely take you to the wrong conclusion.
Take A Moment
Thank you for your work young man, great spoken wording is vital.
Stay Safe and Stay Free ❤🎉
Share my fellow apes
Stay Safe and Stay Free
So I got from this that Occam's razor tells you 'witch theory' is the right one to believe and that Italy looks like a shoe but Canada sounds like aboot.
In Vitologia, Occam's razor is a classic example of reductionism. While it can be useful in science, it often leads to a reductionist perspective and consequent oversimplification with failure to identify a multidimensional interdependence of multiple relevant factors. This kind of thinking has consequences that we have ample opportunity to observe during history. The overall picture tends to be quite ugly.
I finally understood Occam's Razor thanks to YOU!!! :-)
At the top of the blackboard, he wrote:
"Only believe explanations that are simple."
This is a colossal misunderstanding of Occam's razor. 😢
Question, Jeffrey. I was originally taught that there was a difference between Occam's Razor and the Law of Parsimony, because Occam's Razor said the simplest explanation was the best, and the Law of Parsimony said the simplest explanation was the Truth. I then once had a debate with someone who asserted they were the same. Isn't there a (maybe subtle) difference between the two?
There is indeed a difference there. By the way, at some point in this video he says that the simplest explanation is more likely to be true, but that's misstating the principle. The point is to choose the simplest explanation because it makes fewer ad hoc assumptions; you don't know which is "more likely to be true".
@@LMR72 Thank you!
Great video
Thanks!
What is the difference between Occam's Razor and Nuero Linguistic Programming?
NLP is a comportemental approach of comunication. A controversial branch of ethology. Nothing to do with Occam's razor.
Are markers that write poorly on glass, and require you to write backwards better than just doing the illustrations in post-processing?
My Occam's Razor says do it in post.
Just realized that Jeffrey writes everything from the backside, that is even more difficult than mirror writing! Awesome!
Unless...........
He's left handed and they are just showing the film in mirror image......?
Okkam's Razor....
I'm a conspiracy guy.......and I question everything, every minute:)
P.s. The Earth is Flat and immovable. = most simple explanation for what I can see.
😀👍
Hebrew language is written right to left
I had occasion to defend myself in a Tribunal. The charge was that I had failed to comply with a request to provide information to an investigator to whom the task had been outsourced. I then read the statute founding and governing the organization in question. It had been amended to say that investigation and hearing of complaint could not be delegated in whole or in part. Clearly, I say, that an illegal act cannot found a basis to punish me. I listened to the response which lacked cogency as it depended upon changing the meanings of words and restricting the words to be interpreted to a preamble to a list. I was given limited time to respond as the rejoinder. Occam's razor popped into my head so I said it. Afterwards I looked to see if it was a concept raising in law. Increasingly it is. It is very similar to the plain meaning principle.
Although the Law is neither the most logic nor the most comprehensible thing.
@@JeanMarieMAZALEYRAT it is so vastly overcomplicated that you can arrive at virtually any answer you by cherry picking precedent and principle.
@@robertwalker5991 That's why It was a good idea to invoque Occam's razor, although it could seem incongruous related to the matter aha!
Bishop William of Ockham
So it should be Ockham’s Razor.
Occam is a brand of light bulb
Thanks a lot ! This was very helpful .
Glad it was helpful!
Really great video man! Thanks for sharing cool content.
What a great explanation!!
I run into this argument a lot, it terms of the kalam cosmological argument. One side tends to believe that there was one first cause. The other side believes in an infinite number of regular causes. Since the second side believes in an infinite number of causes, do we then say that they presuppose too many entities (literally infinite of them) in order to believe in the second one?
what are these infinite number of regular causes?
@@thesnowybanana2971 Wish I could tell you. Its usually some wishy washy gesturing at quantum fluctuations of some kind but that doesn't tend to work.
@@adenjones1802 alright well the reason I ask is because I have never in my life heard of any sort of “infinite number of causes” argument ever given
nope. all of the stuff the dude told here is not based on logic and in that sense theory of complexity. a{one cause, not infinite causes}, b{not one cause, infinite causes}. it's obviously the same amount of entities, only different distribution of truth values.
Occam's Razor applied: SR and GR your relation to sidereal time is the inverse of your speed through the medium of the galaxy.
O.R. applied: Effective gov't is simple and needs little rationalization.
Hickam’s Dictum and Crabtree’s Bludgeon should also be considered of course 😊
Epic video thank you!
So im trying to take this in but I can't get over this magical board he's writing on lol....is he writing backwards 🤔 or is it the board? Either way I'm impressed
I was wondering about that too. But I imagine he is writing it the normal direction (from his perspective) and then during editing they flip it so that it looks correct to us.
@@John-bl3dc yeah it´s just mirrored, also some matth people have this setup, its cool
THANK YOU... i LEARNED SOMETHING NEW TODAY...YAAAAY
thank you so much for this video! I'm writing a paper on the need for a multiplicity of theories and this was so helpful!!! :))
Glad I could help!
Thanks for adding that detail to your comment. Reviewing multiplicity developed a possible solution for my theories.
This video promulgates the erroneous prescription of favoring mere simplicity over explanatory power. Explanatory power is a much much more important principle than simplicity.
I love your explanation of the study of Ontology, however, you missed 3/4 of the continents drawn, albeit mirrored.... awesome vid!
THANK YOU
You're Welcome!
the pink marker is so satisfying
I'd say that Occam's razor wasn't quite clearly explained in the witches vs tiny bugs example, namely Occam's razor doesn't need you to ALREADY HAVE things in your ontology in order to explain an issue, it needs you to be able to ADD the most obvious thing into your ontology that would fit while also solving the issue.
In this case, you needn't KNOW about tiny bugs per se (no need for the microscope yet), you could observe the things already in your ontology and make a logical assumption that fits.
Per tiny bugs: you KNOW there is Earth, there are mountains, there are rocks, there is gravel, there is sand and there is silt (where you cannot see the particles but you know they are there, else it couldn't behave the way it does). You also know there are whales, elephants, lions, cats, mice, grasshoppers, ants and fleas. From these two sequences it is quite logical that there very well may be TINIER BUGS, even if you can't observe them individually. Greek philosophers observed these sequences and not only presumed the bugs but also the atoms (the point where you cannot get any tinier).
Per witches: you know there are people sick that are mean to other people. Those very well might be "cursed" by witches, due to their rudeness, impoliteness, wholesome meanness. Still, you also know there are many, probably much more people, that are very nice and good to other people, and they ALSO get sick. This would tell you they most likely are NOT "cursed" because there is no motive for it.
Which of the two would most likely give disease to the latter and probably larger group? If you suppose the tiny bugs (since the witches don't really fit as cause), then you again look at the former (mean) group and also deduce that the bugs fit all very well (adding only tiny invisible bugs to the ontology) while witches would be the 2nd addendum thus you can ignore it.
Even if you go the medieval way of thinking that evil witches cursed the good people in order to bring evil and chaos into the world, you again get the problem of already mean people getting sick. Not to mention that witches themselves got sick too and died of various sicknesses during the trials too... Back to something that does not discriminate, the tiny bugs :)
When I was in first grade, during recess, I asked myself the question, "Why am I here?" I thought about it and decided I was too young to answer.
When I was in nursery school I stole a big ring of keys. I buried them near our house. When I tried to dig them up, I could not find them. I did a lot of digging. Then I gave up and walked home. One the way I came up with a BIG THOUGHT: God knows where they are and that I did a bad thing.
In college I started following God and Jesus Christ. I have had a good life and now am 72. I have some answers and still many questions.
Dr. Kaplan's lectures are good and help me with thinking through things.
whether God exists... that sort of thing.
"You don't have to worry about any of that."
You just simplified my existence! Thank you.
Do you record everything normally and then flip the video frames horizontally? After eliminating what is impossible, I think that is what must be true. Or....
there is a camera behind you and you are writing on a lightboard that has a mirrored surface.
Go with your simplest assumption 🙃