*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6422
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« on: April 17, 2019, 01:57:37 PM »
I am considering whether or not to de-list the Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof articles from the main pages. They come from the early era of the other website, and can be interpreted as mainly trolling. However, it is possible that they are not trolling.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

https://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

If either or both should stay, or if they should be rewritten, how should it be done and what should they say? These are subjects that come up on a regular basis.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 02:09:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2019, 02:18:09 PM »
I am thinking of de-listing the Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof articles from the main pages. They come from the early era of the other website, and can be interpreted as mainly trolling. However, it is possible that they are not trolling.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

https://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

If either or both should stay, or if they should be rewritten, how should it be done and what should they say? These are subjects that come up on a regular basis.

When I was in debate the burden of proof fell upon both sides. In law the burden of proof only falls on the prosecution. I feel like this is more of a debate environment and if I say NASA sent people to Jupiter and another person claims that NASA is the Antichrist I would like both sides to need to present evidence and not just default to the Antichrist because it's more simple.

I think the page makes a point but it's also a trolling kind of point. A perfect example is water vapor condensing on a cold glass of tea during the summer.


Explanation 1: Water is really made up of tiny invisible particles called molecules and sometimes those molecules shoot out of the water and go into the air in a process called evaporation. Those tiny flying invisible water particles then, because of a change in temperature, turn back into water on the side of the cold glass.

Explanation 2: Glass is living because when it gets cold it bleeds water.


One is much simpler therefore does not need to provide any evidence? I disagree. I think both sides need to provide evidence.

Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2019, 02:53:44 PM »
The Occam's Razor page needs to go, it's so subjective what is the "simplest" explanation or which has the fewest assumptions and that page is written in such a biased way it does you no favours.

The burden of proof page should be rewritten. Your claim is the earth is flat, everyone else's claim is the earth is round. Both sides have a burden of proof as both are making claims. It's up to each person to decide whose claim meets the burden of proof.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3634
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2019, 03:46:19 PM »
I am considering whether or not to de-list the Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof articles from the main pages. They come from the early era of the other website, and can be interpreted as mainly trolling. However, it is possible that they are not trolling.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

https://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

If either or both should stay, or if they should be rewritten, how should it be done and what should they say? These are subjects that come up on a regular basis.
I'd say that both articles can stay, but they need complete rewrites to meet any sort of standard of intellectual integrety.  I would suggest consulting proper, reputable sources for definitions of Occam's Razor and burden of proof to find out how they relate to scientific investigation.  Also realize that science doesn't rely on burden of proof as much as preponderance of evidence (another concept that you may want to research). 

You also need to remove any and all false and/or prejudicial comments from those articles.  Things like falsely alleging that NASA claiming to have launched 100 tons straight up at 7 miles/second or claimed to do the impossible on a daily basis have no place in a proper reference article. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2019, 04:18:08 PM »
I would suggest building on Occam's original statement, which is "plurality should not be posited without necessity." In essence, it eventually comes to where we use it today in competing theories, but in reality it necessitates the evaluation of any extraneous explanations.

This site has a fairly good explanation of it.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

BobLawBlah.

*

Offline theEdgyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • sounds good in practice but what about in theory
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2019, 06:19:06 PM »
in my opinion, which i do not expect to be taken into much consideration seeing my low post number and recent join date, the occam's razor should be removed as it does not sound serious for several reasons

1.
it puts a limit on the abilities of government corporations with 20.7 billion dollars in funding without any real proof or examples on the limit of multi billion dollar company

2.
it relies on perspective and the word "seems" as in "the earth seems to move towards me", i don't see this convincing anyone that gravity doesn't exist, especially, again, without proof

while, again, i don't expect to be taken into consideration but that is my two sense if you took the time to read it
the truth

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3634
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2019, 06:42:56 PM »
2.
it relies on perspective and the word "seems" as in "the earth seems to move towards me", i don't see this convincing anyone that gravity doesn't exist, especially, again, without proof
Tom likes to use that "stepping off a chair" example as evidence that Enstien's equivalence principle favors FET when in reality it does no such thing.  An honest and unbiased look at the EP says that, in such small scale experiments, it's impossible to tell the difference between gravity and acceleration, therefore both are equally plausible.  Any wiki entry (including the entries in question) that says otherwise needs to be corrected or deleted.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2019, 03:31:55 AM »
I am considering whether or not to de-list the Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof articles from the main pages. They come from the early era of the other website, and can be interpreted as mainly trolling. However, it is possible that they are not trolling.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor

https://wiki.tfes.org/Burden_of_Proof

If either or both should stay, or if they should be rewritten, how should it be done and what should they say? These are subjects that come up on a regular basis.

I doubt I can add anything to the razor discussion which will compel you further, and I have already provided the scientific perspective on it. If however you desire more details on how assumptions are analyzed, let me know.

In logical discourse, it is my understanding that a burden falls on anyone making a positive claim. Thus:

1. The earth is flat
2. No it is not

Both are positive claims. They claim something is the case. Another:

1. My argument is: the number of marbles in this jar is even.
2. I am unconvinced by your argument.
3. Your argument is wrong.

1 and 3 are positive claims. 2 is not. Moreover, 2 does not believe the number is ODD. 2 is in a position of neutrality.

Hence, claiming that some evidence is false or wrong is a positive claim. Dismissing evidence as uncompelling is not.

Another:

1. The vanishing perspective theory for light cannot describe sunsets.
2. Sunsets are described by VPT.
3. VPT is congruent with refraction theory.
4. Refraction theory is wrong.

All of these are positive claims.

I hope this helps a bit.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3634
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2019, 08:14:40 PM »
Tom, while you're rewriting the burden of proof article, you may want to answer a question that has plagued RE'ers for many years: what evidence do RE'ers need provide in order to satisfy their burden?  This question has been asked many times over the years without a satisfactory answer and it would be nice to finally get one.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2019, 03:48:56 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2019, 10:57:52 PM »
Tom, while you're rewriting the burden of proof article, you may want to answer a question that has plagued RE'ers for many years: what evidence do RE'ers need provide in order to satisfy their burden?  This question has been asked many times over the nears without a satisfactory answer and it would be nice to finally get one.

Markjo the answer is going to be different between all members of the flat earth community. There are some where no amount of evidence will sway their beliefs. For example someone who adheres to a biblical flat earth model. Any evidence you provide to them that the earth is round is like providing evidence that God does not exist or that the bible is a lie.

A biblical flat earth model that relies entirely on personal belief and faith can't be swayed.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2019, 03:16:57 PM »
Tom, while you're rewriting the burden of proof article, you may want to answer a question that has plagued RE'ers for many years: what evidence do RE'ers need provide in order to satisfy their burden?  This question has been asked many times over the nears without a satisfactory answer and it would be nice to finally get one.

Markjo the answer is going to be different between all members of the flat earth community. There are some where no amount of evidence will sway their beliefs. For example someone who adheres to a biblical flat earth model. Any evidence you provide to them that the earth is round is like providing evidence that God does not exist or that the bible is a lie.

A biblical flat earth model that relies entirely on personal belief and faith can't be swayed.
it’s a good thing the bible isn’t a book of science then. Anyone using the bible as evidence of almost any scientific point should probably not read Harry Potter, otherwise they may use that as direct evidence of magic too. To be quite honest most of the people that take the bible literally word for word thankfully aren’t in a position of power now. To each their own, if you want to have faith in any god that’s your right, but i’m sure by now most people who still have faith probably assume the bible is more of a written way of life, rules to follow to be a better person etc. Philosophical lessons to be had but scientific information it is not.

I too would like to know what level of proof is required for flat earthers to change their minds or at the very least question their belief that the earth is flat. From what I’ve seen there is an uncanny level of denial when it comes to the stronger evidence for RE which makes me wonder if FE’ers actually even want to question their beliefs... which is sad to me as I find new information rather invigorating, I love being proven wrong because it’s a chance to learn more and grow as a person. I can imagine these types of people to claim no one can beat them at chess, only to quit their matches when they realise they’re about to lose it, then continuing to claim no one can beat them still... which is infuriating to watch.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2019, 12:07:42 PM »
From what I’ve seen there is an uncanny level of denial when it comes to the stronger evidence for RE which makes me wonder if FE’ers actually even want to question their beliefs...

Let me add a "Occam's Razor"-style argument: resources. My experience is that it is very difficult to squander resources (money, fuel, time, space, etc...), without a compelling reason, for a long period of time. Sooner or later (usually sooner) someone will expose you, or will outsmart you, or will propose a better alternative. So, believing that a worldwide, decade-wide, space agencies conspiracy burning huge money just for the sake of "winning" is ridicolous. Also thinking that no competing nation would expose it. Or thinking that companies would not benefit from not believing in fe, or a journalist wouldn't be glad to leak the conspiracy. Believing in fe is really viewing life in an unnatural way (maybe that's the good part ;) l
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki: Occam's Razor and Burden of Proof
« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2019, 12:31:29 PM »
I recently read the wiki entry for occam’s, and had mixed reactions.

On the one hand I found it rhetorically solid for a conspiracy theory audience. The tone works well to reinforce a presumed bias, and the cadence gallops the reader among the needed parcels of rhetoric to supplant any doubt. I think it is obvious this is not the author’s first attempt at writing of this kind.

From a scientific perspective, I was disappointed at the lack of detail and objectivity. Sweeping claims are made in succession without ever vesting them against a tailored analysis. Rather than a series of logical syllogisms, the salient thrust are variations of “wouldn’t you agree.” Hence, the reader is left wondering how the author decided on the definition of “simple” (a theme used to juxtapose NASA hoax against obvious reality), and the piece begins to acquire a level of superficiality when it is never discussed how “simple” it would be to devise, construct, implement, and sustain a world-wise hoax for a purpose left unstated. In comparison, the reader cannot help but wonder if it would be easier to just land on the moon.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior