Notes on the Intersection of Occam’s Razor, Epistemology, and the Supernatural
I’ve been sucked into a nearly overwrought discussion about, initially, Occam’s Razor, and thereafter what its use says about belief without evidence, and the like. There aren’t many people with whom I can carry on like this in-person, so I for one credit the current iteration of the internet a philosophical boon.
My most recent hiatus was a result of this discussion. Newsvine in general promises to be a ravenous timesink. I’ve actually contacted Mike Davidson and/or Newsvine directly about support for the Newsvine API in blogging tools like MarsEdit or Ecto (or rather some Linux variant). I’m very interested in both the level of discussion, its volume and quality, and, well, traffic, that I might enjoy by posting content in parallel on Boxing Jewels and my Newsvine column (thus far meagerly filled with a few choice seeded stories). There would never be overlap to the point that either would subsume the other, that I can foresee. If it matters.
Now, I have an assignment of sorts: to prepare a first article describing the history and usage of Occam’s Razor, generally and as it pertains to the supernatural. Much of the strength of the article will rely on an understanding of the terminology itself, as there are varying ways to define what is unknowable, what is supernatural, and what the human cognition has to do with any of it. I will likely post this simultaneously here and there.
Here are some of the bits and pieces I plan to sift through. If anyone reading has something to offer, maybe a resource or impression, I’d be glad to hear about it.
- An article on William of Ockham, credited with at least popularization of the tenet given his name.
- A Wikipedia entry on universals as pertains to philosophy. The IEP article above references universals while building the context of Ockham’s work.
- A Wikipedia entry on Occam’s Razor. Essentially required reading.
- A Wikipedia entry on epistemology. Essentially required reading.
- A Wikipedia entry on logical positivism. I find, though I haven’t really scoured the various facets and schools of philosophical thought—and I’ve no interest in joining one as such—that what I know of logical positivism seems to fit part of my worldview.
- An article on Occam’s Razor which serves more as a similar reference and overview.
- The Myth of Occam’s Razor by W.M. Thorburn, published in Mind in 1918. It’s in the references of the article above. The journal archives are maintained elsewhere, available for a price; but this PDF is freely available here.
- Darkness’s comment on Occam’s Razor. This is basically what started the whole thing, for which I’m grateful. My article will focus on some of the swaths of inconsistent intepretation on both his and my parts, though generally for the most part. Specifically, I want to address this passage:
The problem with Occam’s Razor is that it appeals to whatever position seems simpler, and therefore to our own preconceived notions. For example, it seems simple enough, from your perspective, to view the universe through pure science and therefore exclude the possibility of a God or supernatural power. However, from the perspective of yar and other religious individuals, the presence of God makes the universe simpler and removing him/her/it/them requires a great deal of convoluted logic. As such, whichever position you already supported will be the position that you presume Occam’s Razor to support.
Later, Darkness referred to predictive power, citing that we’d both glossed over it in our doggedness. This is actually incorrect, as I made mention of it in my original response (to yar):
[A]pproach the analysis of a phenomenon using what verified knowledge you do have; and remove extraneous elements of the hypothesis, i.e. those which offer no greater explanatory strength than any other arbitrary substitute [emphasis aded].
- Twentieth Century Analytic Philosophy by Avrum Stroll, bought for an ugly penny at Half Price Books about a month ago. Serendipitous, no?
- More as I find or need them.
4 Comments