| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: Occams razor isn't all that its cracked up to be! |
 |
|
Although critics apply Occam's razor to defend the official version, they are simply listening to Government propaganda. Ironically, they are doing the opposite for WTC7 because they WANT to fit the WTC7 collapse in with the official version.
Making all kinds of assumptions that requires long odds for the collapse to fit in with the official version especially when NIST does admit that the likely explanation for the collapse has a low probability. This is done instead of implying the simpler explanation for what we see on the video footage: CD.
From Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
Second, Ockham's Razor claims to be more than a theory; it is a proposed axiom that supposedly should apply to all theories, and so if it is to be tested we are first forced to choose the set of axioms guiding the nature of the test. This must include either accepting or rejecting the razor a priori and inevitably begging the question, very reminiscent of the problem of induction.
The moment Ockham's Razor is regarded as a principle that is justified inductively, then, a loop of circular logic is formed, as the very problems that induction faces that the razor sets out to solve suddenly apply to it, as well.
inferring that "simpler theories are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones" is just one way of many, and only seems more plausible to us because we are already assuming the razor to be true (see e.g. Swinburne 1997).
We are left with the choice of either accepting Ockham's Razor as an article of faith based on pragmatist considerations or opting to attempt justifying it deductively rather than inductively. |
Do critics rely on Occam's razor too much? And are they contradicting themselves when applying O.R. to WTC7?
Discuss.
PS This is meant to start a reasonable debate, not a slanging match! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You are making the mistake of thinking the critics believe the official fairy tale. They do not. They are liars who support the lying government's lies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Occams razor isn't all that its cracked up to be! |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | Do critics rely on Occam's razor too much? And are they contradicting themselves when applying O.R. to WTC7?
Discuss.
|
Perfectly fair question. Personally I think O.R. is quoted much too freely and without much thought. But perhaps is does apply to WTC7, for example (where OT=Official Theory):
A number of times on this forum I've asked the questions below and never had a sensible reply.
The OT, one way or another, requires impact damage from WTC1 plus several hours of fire in a somewhat unusually-constructed steel frame building.
The CT requires it to be either pre-wired for CD, or wired on 9/11 itself.
1. If it was pre-wired, then why? What would the conspirators have done with that building if it hadn't been hit and ablaze? Just CD a perfectly sound building in plain view of thousands of witnesses and live TV, without the "cover" of massive fires? What were they hoping to gain, given that the rebuilding costs have exceeded the insurance payout?
2. If it was wired on the day, then why and how? Fact is that CD cutting charges take a long time and a lot of planning to install. Even Jowenko (who was lied to about impact damage etc) thought it would be a tough job even with girders already exposed by impact damage. But, if the damage was done and the building was burning heavily, why go in there on 9/11 itself with CD gear even if it was technically possible? Why have the CD teams primed and ready to go when you can't possibly have prior knowledge of the extent of damage about to be done by the collapse of WTC1, and the building is going to be a write-off anyway even without the CD??
WTC7 was very big by most cities' standards, but nothing extraordinary by NY standards. Why even concern yourself with it to the extent required to execute a CD, whenever it was wired? WTC1+2 were world famous icons, as is the Pentagon. Predictable targets for anybody, CT or OCT depending on your point of view. WTC7 was not.
Most CT'ists see WTC7 as the one glaringly obvious smoking gun. I see it exactly in reverse. Occam's Razor (if we're going to use it at all) makes the CD of WTC7 almost insanely complex,contrived and irrelevant.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:50 am Post subject: Re: Occams razor isn't all that its cracked up to be! |
|
|
| Quote: |
Do critics rely on Occam's razor too much? And are they contradicting themselves when applying O.R. to WTC7?
|
It's not critics, it's science. Critic's approach to 9/11 is decidedly scientific and the application of Occam's razor in this way comes directly science.
Philosophically, science has debated the value of occam's razor as a foundation many many times. Alternate "razors" have been proposed before, but none have ever caught on.
It should be noted that Occam's razor has nothing to do with truth. Occam's razor doesn't say that the simpler theory is _true_, it says it just preferred. As a rule of thumb, though, scientists would agree that simpler theories are far more likely to be true, as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Occams razor isn't all that its cracked up to be! |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | | Although critics apply Occam's razor to defend the official version, they are simply listening to Government propaganda. |
There will be a lot of new members who have not read the associated threads where people defend the official version, not to mention those who have no clue what Occam's Razor is, let alone how it relates to 9/11 in the context you specify.
A short paragraph detailing what the principle is, would have opened it out to all readers of the thread. By offering no real insight into what you mean, then asking people to 'debate', alienates many.
As a toxophilist, I know this to be true.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anti-sophist wrote: | | It should be noted that Occam's razor has nothing to do with truth |
We've told you that enough times! 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Occams razor isn't all that its cracked up to be! |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | It should be noted that Occam's razor has nothing to do with truth. Occam's razor doesn't say that the simpler theory is _true_, it says it just preferred. As a rule of thumb, though, scientists would agree that simpler theories are far more likely to be true, as well. |
And as a rule of thumb, conspiracy theorists favor Smacco's razor.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
utopiated
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 645
Location: UK Midlands
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: Occams razor isn't all that its cracked up to be! |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | It should be noted that Occam's razor has nothing to do with truth. Occam's razor doesn't say that the simpler theory is _true_, it says it just preferred. As a rule of thumb, though, scientists would agree that simpler theories are far more likely to be true, as well. |
And as a rule of thumb, conspiracy theorists favor Smacco's razor. |
Hmmm, interesting analogy from someone addicted to the Newtonian-Cartesian state sanctioned line.
Thanks for the infamy on the JREF forum Chipmunk. Don't give up your day job.
We've done this thread to death. Logic is a self referential, subjective system. Thus simple researchers go for the initial simple option. Something that's blatent from most posters in this topic area and/or coming from that pile of bile Randi.
NB: Randi and CFI-West owe Billy Meier $1million.
Buy N0w!
_________________
http://exopolitics.org.uk
http://chemtrailsUK.net
http://alienfalseflagagenda.net
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
