PDA

View Full Version : Hey Phrost...do some actual research.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Pship Destroyer
8/02/2017 7:43pm,
Come on man. RTFM before posting.

You had ONE SHOT to push "Razors – Weapons of Intellectual Self Defense in the Age of Bullshit", and you blew it.

Phrost says:

https://s3.postimg.org/nohmmtuxf/Capture.jpg

This is an error I've corrected before...who can tell what Phrost's fuckup is here?

lant3rn
8/02/2017 10:11pm,
Come on man. RTFM before posting.

You had ONE SHOT to push "Razors – Weapons of Intellectual Self Defense in the Age of Bullshit", and you blew it.

Phrost says:

https://s3.postimg.org/nohmmtuxf/Capture.jpg

This is an error I've corrected before...who can tell what Phrost's fuckup is here?


Ockham stated the principle in various ways, but the most popular version, "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) was formulated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus.[8]

From Wiki

Maybe this is a misquotation of Ockham and actually comes from John Punch..

or the latin is translated incorrectly;


pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.”


I don't know?

Phrost
8/03/2017 12:50am,
So you're saying that a single line in the entire article, referring to a translation from Latin, which you don't agree with, undermines the entire piece?

Hyperbolic much?

It's one thing to fact check a translation, it's another to go all 8-Mile, mom's spaghetti as if I was trying to "Lose Myself" in some sort of intellectual rap battle.

MisterMR
8/03/2017 4:15am,
My understanding (from my memories of history of philosophy in high school, so many years ago and not a great knowledge anyways) is this:

In Occam times, the scholastic (Christian) philosophy included theology and "natural philosophy" [what we would call natural sciences].
In this view, many natural phenomena were attributed to direct or indirect divine intervention, like the idea that angels moved the stars etc. (also the stars were supposed to be an immutable plane of existence and not really part of our material world as we think it today).

Various philosophers/theologians wrote their theories about how the world worked, however, in particular regarding astronomy where stars were supposed to be closer to God and the angels, these theories were contemporaneously treaties about astrology and theological treaties about God and the angels.

As various philosophers added angel after angel to their explanation of how the world works, the final result was an enormous quantity of supposed angelical entities.

Some rationalists like Duns Scoto and Occam (both from the same scottish school) were pissed of from this continuous recourse to "hipothise another angel" and came out with the "economic principle" that you really shouldn't postulate the existence of a new angel/metaphisical entity just because you feel like it, so both the formulations:

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" -> entities (angels) shouldn't be multiplied if it isn't strictly necessarious
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" -> a multiplicity (of angels) shouldn't be assumed if it isn't strictly necessarious

amount to the same thing.

However it should be noted that, while this kind of rationalism marked one shift from middle-age thinkng to modern thinking, Occam really was referring strictli to the "entities" of his times (the angels), and not to the much wider concept of "Occam's razor" that we think today.

Somewhat funnily, according to wikipedia Aristotle already had expressed our "Occam's razor" in a way that is much closer to our thinking:


Aristotle writes in his Posterior Analytics, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [other things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
EDIT: link to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Formulations_before_Ockham

Though I have no idea why wikipedia puts a latin expression [ceteris paribus] in Aristotle's mouth and then translates it as if it was Aristotle's original speech.

DCS
8/03/2017 4:49am,
Though I have no idea why wikipedia puts a latin expression [ceteris paribus] in Aristotle's mouth and then translates it as if it was Aristotle's original speech.
Cut and paste from any of the many works that use this: http://www.worldcat.org/title/basic-works-of-aristotle/oclc/1406055

Phrost
8/03/2017 6:22am,
Look
If you had
One shot
Or one opportunity
To write an article about bullshit
In one moment
Would you capture
Or just let it slip?

Yo
His balls are sweaty, keys weak, mouse is heavy
There's Latin on his sweater already, hommo ecce
He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready
For F-bombs, but he keeps mistranslatin'
What he wrote down, the forums whine so loud
He lays his post down, but the words won't come out
He's chokin', how, everybody's jokin' now
The clocks run out, times up, over, blaow!

Snap back to reality, oops there goes Phrosty he
Don't give a crap that he
Screwed up some Latin he
Wrote a damn fine piece and
Now, he's run the joke in
to the ground but he has to go on
it's way too far gone
and he's forgotten the beat to the original song
but he's still typing and something about Detroit

Phrost
8/03/2017 6:56am,
Anyway, if anyone would like to suggest a correction, feel free.

ermghoti
8/03/2017 8:18am,
Isn't the easiest way to explain Occam to slow people to just relate it to the physician's hoofbeats analogy?

MisterMR
8/03/2017 9:10am,
Isn't the easiest way to explain Occam to slow people to just relate it to the physician's hoofbeats analogy?

My understanding is that "physician hoofbeats" refers to the statistically most likely hypothesis, while "Occam's razor" refers to the number of assumptions needed to substance an hipothesis.

For example, suppose that some chinese monk spends his life doing "ki" exercises and at some point he is able to lift an enormous amount of stuff. There are 2 explanations:

1) Ki exists and the monk has a lot of it;
2) The monk's muscles just became stronger because of the exercise.

Occam's razors favours explanation 2 because explanation 1 needs the assumption that some misterious and otherwise unperceptible energy "ki" exists.

However if you for some reason already believe that ki exists, neither of the two explanations require an "additional" entity, so Occam's razor would be neutral.

"Physician hoofbeats" instead is based on the statistically most likely hipothesis, so it doesn't really apply.

BKR
8/03/2017 10:09am,
So you're saying that a single line in the entire article, referring to a translation from Latin, which you don't agree with, undermines the entire piece?

Hyperbolic much?

It's one thing to fact check a translation, it's another to go all 8-Mile, mom's spaghetti as if I was trying to "Lose Myself" in some sort of intellectual rap battle.

Take care, or he will fire you...

Pship Destroyer
8/03/2017 9:59pm,
So you're saying that a single line in the entire article, referring to a translation from Latin, which you don't agree with, undermines the entire piece?

Hyperbolic much?

It's one thing to fact check a translation, it's another to go all 8-Mile, mom's spaghetti as if I was trying to "Lose Myself" in some sort of intellectual rap battle.

More like your quotation is hyper-bollocks.

Your article on Occam's Razor ironically violated the same principle it's written about..you added multiplicative layers of bullshit that readers now have to dig beneath, work they probably won't do, and thus they'll remain ignorant, all thanks to your attempt at truthiness.

You mistakenly misattributed a Latin phrase ("“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”) to William of Ockam, when it was actually produced and recorded by theologian Johannes Poncius AKA John Punch of the Franciscan Order of Friars Minor.

You see...Sir William did not originate this axioma vulgare, in fact he was just a famous proponent of it, and it predates him by centuries, and centuries after Sir William's death, John Punch uttered the Latin quotation you claimed William stated "in the original Latin" (as IF there was a non-original Latin version..).

The words of John Punch belong to John "Phrost Don't Know Me" Punch. Give credit where it is due by properly sourcing quotations, it's that simple.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/201/185/19b.jpg

Pship Destroyer
8/03/2017 10:09pm,
Now for a quote that actually comes from Sir William:

""For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture." - William of Ockham
(Spade, 1999).

Most people who peddle Ockham's Razor, especially atheists, don't realize he was a devoutly religious monk.

Pship Destroyer
8/03/2017 10:21pm,
And don't EVEN get me started on your bit about "Hitchen's Razor" (which rips off Carl Sagan)...

..or "Hanlon's Razor", a hipster 80's era version of quotation directly ripped from your favorite author (Robert Heinlein's 1941 novella, "Logic of Empire")..

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity" - R.A. Heinlein.

Philosophical razors are like Internet quotes: everybody's got one to share, and most of them are copied, borrowed, or just bullshit.

Don't be that guy.

Phrost
8/03/2017 11:45pm,
Link me to some sources for all that and I'll happily update the article accordingly.

Michael Tzadok
8/04/2017 2:38am,
It's really simple. Simply say, hey Phrost, you accidentally misattributed John Punch's statement to Ockam. Here is Ockam's actual statement, that isn't that much different but would be more accurate if you used it:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
More things should not be used than are necessary.

Source:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
Now if we are going to argue with the Encyclopedia Brittannica, I'm going to just check out because we will have reached the realm of alt-facts.

Pship Destroyer
8/04/2017 2:47am,
Why are you quoting Sir William of Ockham in Latin, Michael?

I'm sure you have a solid source suggesting William ever uttered or recorded such a phrase.

No, not alt-facts. Poor citation, because they're only human. The online EB is shitty when it comes to sourcing things.


It's really simple. Simply say, hey Phrost, you accidentally misattributed John Punch's statement to Ockam. Here is Ockam's actual statement, that isn't that much different but would be more accurate if you used it:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
More things should not be used than are necessary.

Source:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor
Now if we are going to argue with the Encyclopedia Brittannica, I'm going to just check out because we will have reached the realm of alt-facts.